Malawi and Kenya: Aid

Lord Steel of Aikwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will resume their budgetary aid programmes to Malawi and Kenya in light of political developments in both countries.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, budget support remains an important part of our assistance to Malawi. In 2003–04, our programme totals £47 million, of which £15 million is earmarked for budget support. Should the Government of Malawi take steps for sustainable poverty reduction, additional assistance may be available from DfID's performance fund.
	The United Kingdom is working closely with the new Government of Kenya to develop the policies and systems that could pave the way for a resumption of bilateral budget support.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Has she noted that in Malawi, thanks partly to the emergency food aid given by Her Majesty's Government, the good rains and the good crops, they are well on their way to overcoming the hunger problem and, in fact, expect a food surplus this year? But will she recognise that, in the mean time, social programmes such as those for education and health have been cut back pending the resumption of full budgetary aid?
	I join the Minister in welcoming the peaceful and democratic transition to a new government in Kenya. Does she agree that they have got off to a good start, with emphasis on good governance, respect for human rights and the attack on corruption? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press them to move in the direction of the constitutional reforms that we expect?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that the work that we and other donors have done and the good rains have enabled Malawi to overcome the problem of hunger. Suspension of donor budget support in late 2001 resulted from the consistent failure by the Government of Malawi to implement agreed macro-economic reforms and to pursue the right macro-economic policies. We have been working with them on that. That is why we have said that, if they pursue the right policies, we will return to giving a limited amount of budget support. I agree with the noble Lord about the impact that that is having on social sectors.
	The new Government of Kenya have got off to a good start. My right honourable friend Clare Short was there, and I visited recently. They are doing a considerable amount of work to tackle corruption. We are working closely with them. They intend that the constitutional reforms will be put in place by the middle of the year. We will continue to encourage that process.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we welcome the election results in Kenya and congratulate President Kibaki. I hope that it heralds a brighter future for the people of Kenya. Can the noble Baroness confirm that aid to Kenya will be securely linked to political and economic reform and to ending corruption? Does she accept that, if more and more aid bypasses charities and local civic society and goes straight into central government pots, it is more difficult to ensure that money is accountable? Does she further agree that more money should be spent by local organisations, which are less corrupt, more effective in fighting poverty and will help to build a more vibrant civic society?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness and I have discussed the issue in the past—not in relation to Kenya, but more generally in terms of our development resources. She will be aware that a key part of our strategy is to move to longer-term understandings with governments that are pursuing the right policies and are on track with the IMF. That will enable us to move to a 10-year programme, as we have done in Ethiopia and Rwanda, whose governments know the amount of resources that they will get year on year. I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not move to that form of support unless we are sure that the right kind of financial systems are in place. At the same time, we continue with wider programme funding, some of it through NGOs, which is important, as the noble Baroness said, to build local capacity and, in particular, local civic society.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. Does she agree that during the final months of the rule of Daniel arap Moi in Kenya corruption had become endemic and had led to the closure of a number of United Nations schemes, particularly the building of water catchment dams in remote areas of Kenya such as Turkana, which I visited a few months ago? Will the Minister look at that particular set of projects, as irrigation and clean water constitute one of the most fundamental bases for development? If such programmes are to be suspended because of previous corruption, it will have a disastrous effect on the people of those areas.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that donors were very concerned about corruption in Kenya. We are pleased that the proposal for the new anti-corruption authority will give them the power to prosecute independently, which the previous Kenyan government's proposals lacked.
	The noble Lord asked about irrigation and clean water. He will be aware that our focus is on education, in particular working with the Kenyan Government to provide schoolbooks, especially for primary education. I have seen the impact of that in the schools that I visited when I was in Kenya earlier this year. The European Union focuses on irrigation and water projects. I will certainly take the noble Lord's comments back to the EU.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I was also there during the elections. There is an enormous amount of good will towards the new Kenyan Government. One of the first decrees was that all primary schooling should be free. That resulted in an enormous increase in the number of children who turned up at school. Do the Government have any plans to help the Kenyan Government with this new influx of primary schoolchildren?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that was one of the first announcements to be made by the new Kenyan Government. Noble Lords may know that not only did primary schoolchildren turn up once free education was announced, but also a number of adults who had not had the opportunity to receive schooling. We immediately reported that an additional amount would be made available for our education programme in Kenya, and we shall watch the results very closely. Once Kenya is on track with the IMF, we shall look again at our funding mechanisms.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new Kenyan Government should receive our full support if we are to help to ensure that the Kenyan people retain their faith in the democratic process? What is the timetable for restoring UK and EU aid? Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will the provision of primary education for all children be adequately funded, especially as adults are also now trying to take part in that education? In addition, will the constitution change be the cornerstone of that support so that the progress made thus far will be secured into the future?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working closely with the Kenyan Government to support the development of a credible poverty reduction strategy and to help them to strengthen their financial and management systems. We shall need to see considerable progress in those areas before resuming budgetary support, although, as I said in my previous answer, we are giving a substantial amount in support of education.
	The resumption of bilateral budget support will depend on the speed with which the Kenyan Government make progress in developing their poverty reduction strategy. The noble Baroness may wish to know that the World Bank intends to provide some 50 million dollars for primary education. It also intends to release the second 50 million dollar tranche of the public service reform programme loan, which was held back two years ago. Therefore, there is already some movement. The European Commission will soon release some 40 million euros in budget support to meet earlier retrenchment costs.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the amount of work being done by the British Council in Kenya? What additional moneys are the Government giving to the British Council to extend that work?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the work being done by the British Council in Kenya and in other parts of Africa. The British Council's overall budget is agreed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of a three-year cycle. The council received an increase in that grant earlier last year.

Strategic Health Authorities

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider their position with regard to nurse membership of strategic health authorities.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, strategic health authorities have been in operation for less than 12 months. The majority have now appointed a director of nursing or lead nurse. The department is working with authorities that have yet to appoint. Time must now be given to allow the new arrangements to bed down.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, perhaps I may thank the Minister for that partially encouraging reply. However, does he agree that, as nurses represent two-thirds of the National Health Service workforce and carry direct clinical responsibility for patient care around the clock, they have the most intimate knowledge of the impact of healthcare policies at the front line of care?
	Therefore, does he accept that it is perhaps worrying that strategic health authorities have a mandatory responsibility to appoint a communications officer but not a nurse and that reportedly some SHAs have not appointed any nurses to their boards? As a matter of great urgency, will he undertake to address that anomaly—an anomaly both in practice and in principle—which is bad for patient care and damaging for nursing morale?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that nurses have a key role to play in terms of both the direct patient care that they provide and the leadership that senior nurses can give. Strategic health authorities are required to have a senior nurse but they are not mandated to appoint a nurse as an executive director because we wish to give them as much discretion as possible. There is no mandatory requirement to appoint communications officers to the boards of those authorities. The chief executive pointed out to the authorities that it is as well to allow information officers to attend board meetings so that they can inform the community of the decisions taken. There is no question of that being a mandatory appointment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will it not be rather difficult for senior nurses to provide input into the requisite strategic planning within the strategic health authority unless they are represented at board level? I wonder whether the Minister, with his good intentions in this matter, could consider that request.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that matter was given a great deal of consideration. Although we recognise that nursing makes an important contribution to strategic planning, it was decided that it would be wrong to lay down an absolute requirement for a strategic health authority to appoint a nurse as an executive director. However, it was made clear to SHAs that they needed to have a nurse in a senior position. I say to the noble Lord that NHS trusts, which provide the bulk of NHS services, are required to appoint a director of nursing to the board. There is also a requirement for a nurse to be on the board of a primary care trust and the executive committee. Therefore, nurses are strongly represented in places where key decisions are made about the provision of services to patients.

Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have served nearly 50 years in the NHS. I have two brief, inter-related questions for the Minister. First, can he assure the House that action will be taken to fulfil the promise made in Shifting the balance of power that a visible senior nurse will be provided at every level of the NHS to ensure that the contribution of front-line nurses and midwives is optimised and that high quality services are delivered? I heard the Minister's response about the requirement for a nurse to be appointed at NHS trust level and at primary healthcare level, but that is not necessarily so right through the organisation of the NHS.
	Secondly, does the Minister agree that at the moment the high wastage of qualified nurses causes a problem? I know that efforts are being made to recruit nurses, but in order to promote career progression it is important that they should have a place at the management team level so that nurses know that their voices are being heard. Can the Minister assure the House that such a requirement could be put in place?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that I have answered the point in relation to primary care trusts and NHS trusts where there is visible nurse representation at the most senior levels. With regard to the limited number of strategic health authorities that have not yet appointed a senior nurse, I intend to let the chief nursing officer of the department loose on them. I am sure that we can look forward to their quick compliance.
	More generally, I accept that the nursing profession is critical of our plans for developing and improving the health service. I believe that the appointment of nurse consultants and the greater authority that nurses are being given through the modern matron approach are the most visible ways in which we can indicate to nurses and former nurses that nursing is a very good profession to be in.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, those, like myself—I am a dentist—who have spent a lifetime in the NHS would accept that nurses come second to doctors in relation to having a place on the boards of strategic health authorities. Does the Minister agree that the document is unclear as to whether nurses should be appointed to boards? He has spoken widely about nurses having senior positions, but is he aware that those who believe in the National Health Service are of the view that a nurse is one of the most important people and should certainly occupy an executive position? Will he ensure that those strategic health authorities that have not made such an appointment do so?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on strategic health authorities that have yet to appoint a senior nurse, I have already informed the House that I shall ensure that that happens. I do not believe that there is any confusion about the membership regulations that lay down the requirements on strategic health authorities. There is no requirement to appoint a director of nursing who would be an executive director of the strategic health authority, but there is a clear requirement to ensure that a senior nurse is appointed to the strategic health authority. Nurses make a real impact in the direct provision of patient care services. At the NHS trust level, a nurse is an executive director as the director of nursing.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister as concerned as I am that the National Nursing Leadership Project is to be dissolved on 1st April, leading to thousands of nurses being unable to train in leadership skills?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the various approaches that are being undertaken to encourage nurse leadership are expanding. Over a two-year period £4 million has been spent embracing 30,000 nurses in nurse leadership courses and programmes. In the future we shall expand such programmes. More and more nurses are taking on senior positions, not just in relation to nursing, but also in general management. We want to encourage the profession to do more in that regard in the future.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the Minister has told the House that in the future strategic health authorities will be closely monitored on their appointment of nurses. Can he give us the timescale for that? Will he promise to report back to the House on the progress? Given that it is not mandatory, does he expect to see a nurse on every strategic health authority?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I have made clear to the House, it is not mandatory. Therefore, I cannot give an assurance that I shall report back to the House on the matter. However, strategic health authorities are required to employ a nurse in a senior position. I have told the House that the chief nursing officer will be exploring the matter with vigour with, I believe, the three strategic health authorities that have not made an appointment. When appropriate, I shall report back to the House on that.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are into the eleventh minute, I am afraid.

Construction Industry: Insurance Costs

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing I declare an interest as president of the National Home Improvement Council, which depends on the construction industry to achieve its objectives.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to alleviate the difficulties of companies in the construction sector obtaining insurance to enable them to continue their business.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are very concerned by the significant rises in insurance costs and are undertaking a review, led by the Department for Work and Pensions, to assess the scale and nature of difficulties with the employers' liability insurance system. We are also aware of the particular problems in the construction sector, and officials discussed those issues with representatives of the sector on 20th February. The Government are encouraging insurers, brokers and business to work together to ensure that affordable cover is available.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. I am glad that the Government are taking the problem seriously. Is the Minister aware that during 2002 the insurance liability burden on the construction industry more than doubled and that it is likely to more than double again in 2003? In some cases firms have been unable to obtain insurance at all which means that legally they will have to cease trading. Bearing that in mind, and while the various studies now in hand are continued, does the noble Lord agree that some interim measures should be taken to enable firms to continue in business? If that is not done, is it not likely that uninsured cowboy traders could take over the business?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation is serious. There have been substantial increases, particularly in the construction industry. Increases of 200 per cent have been reported. However, seeking interim measures is another matter as it is not clear what they would be, other than the Government providing insurance. I believe that that would be regrettable because of the inability of the Government to do other than take all the worst risks, and getting out of the situation would be extremely difficult. This is a complex market. We need to be absolutely certain about the evidence, the key issues in the market and the case for, and objectives of, reform before we take any action.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are two key aspects to the problem; first, the very high level of awards, and, secondly, and equally importantly, the sheer cost of mounting a defence which increasingly means that people, although believing themselves innocent, cannot afford the cost and are forced to settle out of court?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a number of reasons have been suggested for the situation. The insurance industry attributes rises in premiums to factors ranging from the effects of 11th September to the growing use of no win, no fee arrangements that lead to more personal injury claims and new types of claims such as stress. All those matters contribute to the situation. Also lower interest rates have an effect on the cash flow situation and on falling equity values. A whole range of matters affect the situation and before we take any action we must be clear which matters are important and where action is possible.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problems of small professional roofing companies, who are probably having to bear the highest increases in premiums, have nothing to do with September 11th or with no win, no fee cases? They are the victims of something that may drive many—possibly all—of them out of business in the near future. Can he assure us that the review that he is undertaking will come to a swift conclusion and that those of us who are dependent on such companies to keep the rain out of our houses are not left with no recourse other than illegal cowboys?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that small roofing companies are probably not affected by September 11th. We are discussing the capacity of the market. If that capacity is affected in one area, that can have knock-on effects in other parts of the market.
	The construction industry faces particular issues, one of which is that it does not have an especially good record on health and safety. In particular, an increasing difficulty is that of insurance companies distinguishing between those companies that have good health and safety records and those that do not. That may be one area where one may find improvement in the market.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister said that it may be difficult to find a short-term solution. Will he bear in mind that the Government, through the insurance premium tax, have benefited enormously from spiralling insurance charges? Cannot they set aside some of those proceeds to help firms in especial difficulty?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the review will report in the spring—and quickly. As I said, we do not consider favourably any idea that the Government should start acting as an insurer of last resort, because of the initial difficulty of doing so and the subsequent difficulty of getting out of such an arrangement. Also, setting up such a scheme might well take considerably longer than would trying to correct matters in the market place.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 5 p.m. my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will repeat a Statement on the White Paper on energy.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Licensable activities and qualifying club activities]:
	[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Provision of regulated entertainment]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 108, line 32, leave out from "of" to ", and" in line 33 and insert—
	"(i) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment, or
	(ii) any person concerned in the organisation or management of those facilities who is also concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) in which those facilities enable persons to take part"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 218. The Government are committed to providing a regulatory environment within which entertainment can thrive. The Bill is a key tool to help us achieve that aim. However, in view of the real concerns raised by many performers, on 18th February we announced a package of concessionary measures. The amendments in this group constitute one element of that package. They make clear that entertainers will not commit an offence if they simply take part in the provision of unregulated entertainment unless, for example, they also had a hand in the organisation of the provision.
	Amendment No. 2 makes clear in Schedule 1 that for private functions, an individual who simply makes facilities available, but is not concerned with the management or organisation of the entertainment for which the facilities are used, is not to be considered as doing so for a charge. In practical terms, that means that an individual—perhaps someone who owns or manages an historic house or other suitable venue—will not be subject to the licensing regime simply because he hires out the venue to a third party, perhaps for a wedding or other function, and that third party then chooses to provide regulated entertainment using the venue's facilities unless the person hiring out the room becomes concerned with the organisation and management of the entertainment.
	Finally, Amendment No. 3 clarifies that the performer is not to be considered as concerned in the management or organisation of an event merely by virtue of his or her having decided on the music he or she has chosen to perform or play, the manner in which it is performed or played or by providing facilities such as musical instruments to perform or play the music. So a jazz trio booked to perform in a night club would not be considered to be concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment—and therefore not caught by the Bill—simply because it decided the set list and brought along the instruments.
	Taken together with the other elements of the package, which will be introduced later during Report, the amendments represent significant concessions. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendment; it would be churlish not to do so. Much has been made of the whistling postman being arrested in the street—an example that I have never used until now, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.
	The Government have gone a long way to meet many musicians' concerns, but a slight problem remains in their minds. If small performers—say those organising a jazz quartet—were dealing with a wedding party and transgressed the Bill's licensing provisions in any way, even if they did not mean to, would they be liable for the onerous penalties set out later in the Bill? I ask that only so that the Minister can clarify the matter, because it appears that although performers themselves would be exempt, many musicians who run their own bands and organise their events might well still fall under the Bill's provisions.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the concessions in the amendments. But they do not go far enough. For example, we are concerned about the suggestion that under Amendment No. 2 there would not be a problem if a person was not concerned in the organisation or management of facilities. Surely, no matter how careful those involved in the music business may be, it will be difficult for them to decide what the provision means—whether they are involved in the organisation of an event.
	A perfect example, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred, is that of the organisation of a private wedding. Clearly, the organisation of such an event would amount to a joint undertaking among a number of people: the bride's parents' approach to the band leader; the band leader establishing what type of music is required and his engaging the appropriate musicians; and, lastly, his charging the parents a fee for that service, plus a fee for his performance, plus a fee to distribute among the other musicians. Band leaders generally pay themselves something extra for all the telephone calls involved, any advertising, and so on.
	Much professional live music is organised in that way for private weddings and other private social events. Even if the initial approach by the parents is to an agent, the musician is often then required to liaise directly with the bride or best man about all manner of details: band line-up, male or female vocals or, if instrumental, saxophone or guitar-led, performance times, repertoire, special numbers, and so on. Although we welcome the concessions in the amendments, we are concerned that they do not provide sufficient clarity to those who will be examining the Bill to understand whether they fall within its provisions, given their actions.
	Amendment No. 218 also relates to small performances. Musicians are concerned that, unless they have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that premises are licensed for their performance, they may still be criminalised.
	We thank the Government for considering with care the concerns that we and many beyond your Lordships' House have had about the regulation of music and live entertainment. However, we fear that the amendment does not go far enough.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I support what has been said. I have been a band leader for 30 years or so and done thousands of small functions. It was a regular occurrence for us to have meetings with the people holding the function to discuss the line-up of the band and the sort of music that was wanted. That happens regularly, and I am worried that the amendment does not cover it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception of the amendments, as far as they go. I think that I can give the assurances that are sought.
	This morning, I received in the post a splendid black poster from the Association of British Jazz Musicians. I suspect that it must have come from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn; I see that he has one. On the front, it has a picture of Tony Blair playing the guitar and saying that performers will be subject to £20,000 fines or six months in gaol. The description of gaol may be a little more demotic than that.
	The amendments are designed precisely to avoid the situation that the Association of British Jazz Musicians describes. It is not intended that performers should have to take responsibility for any failure by the organisers of a venue to obtain the appropriate licence. That never was our intention, and the amendment makes that clear.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to certain types of function. A private wedding would have to be a rather peculiar wedding to be licensable, anyway. It would have to be open to the general public, and there would have to be an entry charge. I am not aware of any private weddings that do that. So, that would be exempted to start with.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked me about band leaders who negotiate with the organisers. They would not be responsible, and the amendments cover that point.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend has seen the poster that was referred to. Has there been consultation with British jazz musicians? Have they accepted the position set out by my noble friend in dealing with issues that they have raised with all of us?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I received the poster only this morning. I have no idea when it was produced, and I do not know whether it was produced before or after the announcements that we made on 18th February. Certainly, we have been open to debate with various musicians' organisations for years, since the preparation of the White Paper, let alone the preparation of the Bill. I can give the assurances sought.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 108, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(a), where the entertainment consists of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music, a person performing or playing the music is not concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment by reason only that he does one or more of the following—
	(a) chooses the music to be performed or played,
	(b) determines the manner in which he performs or plays it,
	(c) provides any facilities for the purposes of his performance or playing of the music."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 3A:
	Page 109, line 4, leave out "raising money" and insert "making a surplus"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, Amendment No. 3A is a technical amendment, designed to clarify the provisions in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. I have been assisted in thinking about the amendment by the Minister's officials, who have been helpful.
	I shall endeavour to explain this thorny little issue. Paragraph 1 of the schedule is, at best, a highly dense and complex central provision. In defining "regulated entertainment", it says that the situations in which entertainment will be classed as "regulated entertainment" include an event to which the public are not admitted and an event which is not exclusively for members of a club but which is,
	"for consideration and with a view to profit".
	That might seem clear enough—I shall not use the word "simple", as nothing in this part of the Bill is simple—were it not for the fact that paragraph 6 mentions that, as regards a charity, an event carried on,
	"with a view to profit",
	shall include an event that is carried on,
	"with a view to raising money for the benefit of a charity".
	This further elaboration in paragraph 6 confuses rather than clarifies the picture.
	The Bill should not catch and is not, I think, intended to catch—hence the amendment—a situation such as a fifth-form dance at a school. There might be a three-piece band playing at the dance, and the young people might be charged admission. Such a situation would not be caught by any other provision, but it might be caught by this one, if the words,
	"with a view to profit",
	literally mean "with a view to raising money for the benefit of the school". However small the amount charged—there might be refreshments as well—it might allow one to say that the event was being held with a view to raising money for the benefit of the school.
	If the position were left so that an event would be caught only if there were a charge for entry and it was being carried on with a view to profit, meaning profit overall, that would be fair enough. As it stands, some sharp-eyed or, perhaps, less than sharp-eyed lawyer might, out of an excess of caution—in these days of suing, we lawyers are invariably driven by caution rather than boldness—interpret the provision in a way that it is not, I think, intended to be taken.
	If noble Lords are still with me, I congratulate them. I have done my best to explain that nasty little point. If the Minister does not understand what I am trying to say, she should say so, and I will have another crack. Otherwise, I shall leave it at that. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. He has discussed it with my officials. It is a thorny little issue.
	It is not the intention of the Bill to define entertainment provided by a charity as provided for,
	"consideration and with a view to profit",
	even if the charity concerned is trying only to cover costs and may even make a loss on the event. I hope that I can avoid keeping the House too long on the point, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I—or some other sharp-eyed lawyers—will examine the drafting of the Bill again. We will take action at a later stage of the Bill's progress, if necessary. I shall write to the noble Lord to explain the outcome of the re-examination and place copies of the letter in the Library. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I happily withdraw the amendment and await receipt of her letter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 109, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) a playing of a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42),"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I speak also to Amendment No. 9, which relates to broadcast music, particularly in pubs and clubs. As this Bill presently stands, a businessman can hire a room, erect a large television screen and invite members of the public to watch football and boxing matches on a regular basis. The businessman could do that without a licence or without even serving a temporary event notice. Such an event could attract hundreds of football or boxing fans, all armed with cans of lager, for what euphemistically could be termed "a good night out". In contrast, a licence would be required, or a temporary event notice should be given to the licensing authority, if a vicar supplied mulled wine after a carol service.
	There is no doubt that serious health and safety issues, and those of public nuisance, arise as regards televised football and boxing. I am told by the Association of Chief Police Offices that events involving televised football attract large crowds and are frequently the source of disorder. If Amendment No. 6 is not accepted, it will be open to every public house, in however peaceful a location, to erect a large television screen and show football and boxing matches to supporters.
	The health and safety and public nuisance issues will be in a different league from those that arise in a quiet pub. The promotion of televised events would transform the unobjectionable activities of a small public house into something quite unacceptable for those living in the neighbourhood. While many nearby residents might agree to a public house, few would agree if it promoted football and boxing matches on television, attracting an entirely different clientele which could be inappropriate to the locality. Indeed, the greater mischief is the promoting of football and boxing matches on television. In comparison, there is less need for a licence for a small public house. It cannot make sense that the former requires no licence but the latter does.
	I find the Government's stance difficult to understand. Amendment No. 6 is supported by ACPO which has considerable experience of such events. I therefore challenge the Minister to provide the evidence on which the Government rely in opposing the amendment and the views of ACPO. The stance undermines the approach taken by the Government in relation to unamplified music. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support these amendments. As has been pointed out by many, it is anomalous that severe and strict regulations are placed on the playing of any form of music while, at the same time, wide-screen televisions can be operated at any volume that does not break health and safety guidelines. I watched a particularly fine rugby match recently—indeed, I counted a number of pubs locally which relied on wide-screen televisions. However, it is strange that televisions, where sound can be greatly amplified by many speakers and so create an extremely noisy event, should be outside the provisions of the Bill. A wide-screen television could be easily regulated. It is easy to control the volume, as it is to control the volume on amplifiers of live music.
	Has a specific deal been done with those providing broadcast entertainment? I do not understand why every form of music in the country has been regulated under the Bill—which the Government claim is deregulating legislation—while wide-screen entertainment is left out of its remit. People who enjoy the wide-screen showing of football and rugby, like myself, are happy that it is outside the remit of the Bill. The Minister, when arguing about live music causing public nuisance, gave an example of an entire orchestra cramming itself into a pub—a wonderful image which I should like to retain. It is strange that on the one hand we can regulate heavily against that unforeseen circumstance, but on the other hand, we cannot deal with an event that we know attracts a large number of people in a partisan atmosphere which will cause a lot of noise. Indeed, most noise will not be caused by the wide-screen broadcasts, but by supporters watching the game.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to be provocative, but this is a deregulatory Bill and a great deal of the thrust of the amendments continues to be deregulatory. However, Amendment No. 6 wants to impose new regulation. As has been made clear, the Government's position is that when music is incidental to the purposes of the licence, it will not be regulated. Muzak in shopping malls, recorded music in restaurants or pubs, and so forth, is not regulated. On aesthetic grounds, some of us may wish that that was not true and that it would be forbidden in many cases. But some people like it. I have just returned from Portugal where it is impossible to go into a small restaurant without the television being on. I find that offensive, but we do not propose introducing new regulation where none exists.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have spoken about wide-screen television, Sky sport and the type of television that encourages noise from those watching it. However, the great bulk of television, which would be covered by those amendments, is television playing quietly in the background or being watched by a few people. Whether the television is being played in a shopping mall while people shop, or in a pub while people drink and talk, or a restaurant while people eat, drink and talk, for the sake of dealing with offensive large-scale noisy television, all television would be brought under the scope of the Bill.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister raises an interesting point but he is arguing from both ends. I have visited a number of pubs, as I am sure he has, in which there has been little control on the volume of television and recorded music. However, the argument put forward by the Minister at Committee stage was that music, at any level, could cause the same amount of nuisance and had to be severely regulated against.
	I have not put my name to these amendments. I hope that they will not be pursued because I understand that this Bill is deregulatory. It is not my intention to add to regulation. However, I still do not understand the Minister's argument because it seems contradictory that noise from live music is more offensive than noise from recorded or amplified televisions.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, does not understand my argument. I had not concluded the argument. The conclusion is that the nuisance from a very loud television and a large audience of young men shouting in accompaniment to it is to be dealt with by the offence of public nuisance.
	The pub or wherever the television is playing must have a licence because alcohol is being sold. Perhaps I may finish the sentence, even though I may not be allowed to finish the argument. In obtaining a licence, the applicant must state what will be occurring on the premises. If there are representations, there must be a hearing.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I want merely to say that on several occasions during the debate he has talked about public nuisance and again he said that the matter would be dealt with by public nuisance legislation. I have to tell him that it would not because it would not be a case of public nuisance.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an assertion. The Bill is clear on the subject in setting out the licensing objectives. They are:
	"the prevention of crime and disorder . . . public safety . . . the prevention of public nuisance; and . . . the protection of children from harm".

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should have spoken for longer. It is not often that I speak too briefly. "Public nuisance" is strictly defined and its test is much higher than "private nuisance". It deals normally with, for instance, running a disorderly house, letting off fireworks in the street and acid house parties. It comes nowhere near the level of disruption to which the Minister refers and, therefore, it is no good him saying that the Bill stops public nuisance. That is such a high hurdle that much of the disorder and lack of amenity with which people are concerned come nowhere near it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to get into a Committee stage debate with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, particularly as the challenge to the concept of public nuisance was not made in Committee and is not made in the amendment and is therefore not the subject for debate. The point—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I do not believe that that argument can stand up. All governments get things wrong. I used to watch my own side getting things wrong time after time. Here again the noble Lord appears to be getting something wrong. It is not good enough to say, "The argument should have been made earlier. We got away with getting it wrong earlier and now we are not going to do anything about it". That is, in essence, what the Minister has said.
	I admire and know the noble Lord sufficiently well to realise that when he puts on a face like the one he is wearing now, which looks very uncomfortable, he knows he has done wrong—as someone said of a Labrador. He is a good and kindly man and I therefore ask him to address the problem posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my discomfort is with the behaviour of noble Lords opposite; not with the quality of my arguments. We are not in Committee. I have made it clear that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, do not arise in consideration of the amendment; they do not arise on the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow; and they ought not to be considered by this House at Report stage. They ought not to be the subject of intervention when there has been a perfectly good opportunity to take part in the debate before the Minister has risen to his feet. I have made no new points but noble Lords opposite are seeking to make new points in the form of interventions. They are not relevant to the amendment before us. If we are to have any semblance of order in this House, we must debate the amendments before us.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that he has made no new points, but one new question struck me in what he has said. He explained that when the applicant applies for a licence, he must make it clear what is to take place. Does that mean that in the application he must say in advance that he intends to show television broadcasts on wide-screen television?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, an applicant will be applying for an entertainment licence and he will be subscribing to the licensing objectives. That is the point I want to make. Under those circumstances, the suggestion that we should be putting under the licensing regime all television programmes that are shown—that is what the amendment means—is not acceptable. It is a degree of new regulation which is not acceptable. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is plainly wrong. The regulatory framework in the area has been in place for many years. It works now and it will work in the future.
	It was claimed that ACPO is in favour of the amendments. I would like to see the chapter and verse for that. The police are certainly concerned about rowdy behaviour caused by heavy drinking when people watch televised sporting events in public houses. We control the sale of alcohol and allow conditions to be imposed to control disorder, but television without alcohol is no different from inviting friends to watch something in one's own home. Control on the sale of alcohol and disorder is the key to our regulatory regime, rather than the imposition of a new degree of regulation.
	We oppose these amendments. They would cause serious trouble indeed to the deregulatory thrust of the Bill.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I assure your Lordships' House that it is not our proposal to introduce new regulation where none exists. Furthermore, noble Lords should rest assured that I have no intention of dividing the House on the amendment. The purpose of proposing it was merely to show that the Bill as drafted does not provide a level playing field for amplified or recorded music, broadcast entertainment and unamplified music. We believe that that is wrong and that all the Minister's arguments about why we should not have regulation in relation to broadcast entertainment apply equally to unamplified music. That was the whole purpose of seeking to engage the Government in debate on the issue.
	It remains a concern to us and to ACPO. However, I shall not dig into the huge pile of documentation that we have received from many quarters beyond your Lordships' House to illustrate that concern. I shall refer only to page 10 of the Scrutiny of Bills: Further Progress Report—the fourth report of Session 2002–03—from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was published on Monday 10th February 2003. It states:
	"we consider that the proposed blanket requirement for all premises to be licensed before any live performance takes place in them, regardless of whether there is a real risk of noise or nuisance, the nature of the performance, the nature of the premises, or the number of performers and spectators, is somewhat heavy-handed. We note that the licensing regime under the Bill would not cover the use of amplification equipment for recorded music, which would seem to prevent health and safety risks similar to those caused by electronic amplification of live performers".
	It goes on, but we understand where the Minister is coming from. It is difficult to suggest that we should legislate depending on, say, the level of sound that broadcast entertainment would produce. Most of us love to get away from piped music, but, sadly, it is in almost all premises involving entertainment. That is unfortunate.
	We do not want to regulate in that way. We want a level playing field for musicians and other performers within premises such as public houses and clubs. We hear what the Minister says. I do not want to divide your Lordships' House but merely send a message to all those who enjoy television broadcasts of live football and other forms of entertainment. We are not agin it; we are trying merely to show that the Government should be doing all they can to provide a level playing field. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 110, line 16, leave out "recorded"

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. Although not consequential, the amendments are grouped together because many of my arguments rest on the same premise. Depending on the Minister's response, I may return to Amendment No. 12 when we reach that point in the Marshalled List.
	Amendment No. 8 seeks simply to leave out the word "recorded". Some of the arguments in favour of the amendment were rehearsed during the debate on the previous amendment—that is, that there seems to be an assumption that live music is more troublesome and causes more problems than recorded music, an issue we discussed in some detail at the previous stage of the Bill.
	However, at that stage I was working on the assumption that the Minister's facts were correct. Information has since come forward which causes me a degree of worry. Some of the statements made in Committee were based on the report of the Institute of Acoustics, which was unaware that it was being cited in the guidance document. The material used in the guidance document appears to be from an Institute of Acoustics document which is currently being rewritten and misleadingly implies a hierarchy in the list of sources of potential complaint.
	Indeed, the as yet unpublished Institute of Acoustics document also lists noise from televised sporting events as a potential source of complaint. I mention that in view of the debate on the previous amendment. The Institute of Acoustics relies on noise complaint data from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health that do not discriminate between noise from pubs and other commercial premises, let alone between live and recorded music. Therefore, if it is based on the Institute of Acoustics document, much of the regulation in regard to live music is somewhat suspect.
	We must therefore debate where noise complaints come from. Much was made by the Minister at the previous stage—we are at Report stage and therefore I am dealing primarily with issues raised in Committee—about how noise could be a public nuisance. I have carried out some research in this regard and some 81 per cent of noise complaints about pubs and bars relate to noisy people outside the premises. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury raised the issue of people banging car doors late at night.
	The UK Noise Association has stated that complaints about live music are rare. It receives more complaints about recorded music. The Institute of Alcohol Studies states that none of the residents' associations it has consulted has ever made an issue of live music. Residents' associations in the heart of London agree that there is adequate legislation to deal with noise within premises. It is the noise and anti-social behaviour outside premises that most concerns residents.
	I raise these issues because, as the Minister said about recorded music a few moments ago, there are adequate provisions in the Bill outside of regulation that already deal with noise pollution. Indeed, health and safety legislation is extremely rigorous in this area. We are concerned that we are basing much of this legislation on a problem that is overstated and, to a degree, misinterpreted.
	We support the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule. It hidebounds many musicians into giving the kind of performance that destroys much spontaneous music. It seems very unfair to limit all live music to only two performers in an evening. We support wholeheartedly what the Government are trying to do to widen the remit for music. We are not satisfied, however, that there is enough protection. The amendments seek to protect the small sources of live music that are the basis of so much entertainment.
	I read an article by Billy Bragg in the Observer in which he stated that he got into music by playing in local pubs for drink money. Whether or not you like Billy Bragg's music—I am a devotee, but it is an acquired taste—will determine whether you believe that that is a good thing or bad thing.
	If there is a problem with the Bill—the Minister says that there is not a problem, but that is a matter of conjecture—it lies in the fact that there has to be a degree of proportionality; there has to be a human right to make music.
	I mention this because there is a real concern that Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention may be breached. Indeed, the most recent report on the Licensing Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the Government's justification of the Bill in respect of the implications for a performer's right to freedom of expression under Article 10.1 of the convention. The Joint Committee was not satisfied with the Government's argument. Not only did it criticise Clause 134, which renders all performers potential criminals—although the Government amendment has gone some way to alleviate that situation—but crucially it stated:
	"Because the licensing regime would apply generally to live performances, without regard to the circumstances in particular cases, we are not satisfied that the proposed system of entertainment licensing as a whole is a proportionate response to a pressing social need to regulate public performances, as ECHR Article 10.2 requires".
	The report also refers to the recently announced U-turn on the licensing of live music in churches, which is extremely welcome. It states:
	"This apparently random exemption for places of religious worship might tend to undermine the argument for the rationality of the blanket licensing regime as a whole, and could engage other human rights issues by appearing to discriminate against occupiers and users of non-religious premises".
	I notice that the right reverend Prelate is in his place and I shall say nothing about the exemption made for churches. However, the Government have rightly made considerable concessions for churches after taking on board the views expressed. These amendments seek to reintroduce the aspect of proportionality, one of the fundamental principles on which human rights are based. There is a reason for introducing legislation in regard to noise control, but musicians also have a right to stand up and perform.
	If there was no problem with that principle musicians would not be worried, but their concern is based on past experience. I particularly welcome the petition raised by the Musicians Union which now contains approximately 75,000 signatures. So a vast number of people in the country believe that the issue needs to be addressed.
	The Government have since the Committee stage published guidance to the Bill, which is helpful to a degree. I was surprised by paragraph 4.45 of the chapter on general guidance. It states:
	"In determining what conditions should be attached to licences and certificates as a matter of necessity for the promotion of the licensing objectives, licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid measures which deter live music, dancing and theatre by imposing direct costs of a substantial nature".
	That is extremely welcome and answers one of our major concerns. However, the paragraph continues:
	"Licensing authorities should be aware that the views of vocal minorities should not be allowed to predominate over the general interests of the community that the committee represents".
	This is worrying. Does the "vocal minority", whose views should not be allowed to predominate over the community that the committee represents, refer to singers? Perhaps the word "vocal" is misleading, but should singers automatically have their views suppressed because of the views of the local community? Or is it the other way round? Should vocal minorities within the community stop the majority of people who sing from expressing their views? It is particularly badly drafted. I believe that the guidance may be made into regulations due to an amendment later in the Bill's proceedings. However, it is causing real concern, and that is the basis of the amendments. They are wide ranging and will affect large sections of the Bill and how licensing is regulated. I believe that they are necessary in order to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s of a welcome piece of legislation. We are not against the Bill, but we believe that live music is a fundamental right, as set out by the committee, and we have to be proportional. We believe that those at the bottom end of the scale who are producing live music should have the right to do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we wholly support Amendments Nos. 8 and 12, to which I have added my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has fully explained the principle behind the amendments. The Government say that the Bill is deregulatory; they say it seeks to promote the performance of live music; they talk of scaremongering in the music world and the myths perpetuated about the negative constraints that the Bill imposes on musicians. But the regulation of music in the Bill is in line only with the licensing objectives in terms of public safety, nuisance and so on. Yet there is no doubt that the provisions will in practice increase the regulation of music even though there already exist adequate legal controls to respond to issues of health and safety, noise, crime and disorder, and so on. For example, there already has to be compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities can, moreover, take action for an injunction where there has been, or it is believed there will be, a nuisance affecting a class of person within their area.
	We have had information from lawyers suggesting that the proposed regulation in the Bill may infringe Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the grounds that the Secretary of State can or should impose controls only where the proportionality test provides that they are necessary. We are not convinced that the necessity has been proved in this case.
	Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 exempts the playing of recorded music when incidental. Why must music be recorded? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said in Committee:
	"The difference between amplified and unamplified music is more important than the difference between live and recorded music".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 398.]
	Paragraph 7 is therefore over-specific. Live music can be equally incidental. Many of the concerns voiced by musicians have been about the inherent problems in spontaneous musical activity, such as a guitar being played in the corner of a pub. Our amendment would exempt unamplified music that is incidental. The Government will undoubtedly respond by saying that it is hard to draw a line between amplified and unamplified, but I do not believe that the line is so tricky to draw. Moreover, the principle is straightforward.
	This concession would go a long way towards convincing musicians nationwide that the Government are genuine when they say that the Bill is intended to promote the performance of music, not strangle it.
	The Minister said in Committee with regard to broadcast entertainment that,
	"if a licensee permits disorder and noise nuisance on his premises he will face a review of his licence, and it will therefore be in his interests to maintain an orderly public house".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 404.]
	What is the difference? Surely the same would apply in relation to unamplified music. Surely that is the right way to deal with unamplified music. We have already spoken about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is deeply concerned about this issue, and the question of proportionality.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the petition that has received over 70,000 signatures. It was based on words put down in an Early-Day Motion introduced by Her Majesty's Opposition in another place. These amendments respond to an overwhelming lobby from beyond your Lordships' House. The lobby has listened to and watched the Government. It has seen the Government, and it is determined not to be difficult. But there is no question that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should be listened to and the interests of the musicians heard.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are absolutely correct. The Minister might like to consider paragraph 12.45 on page 85 of the draft guidance, which states:
	"The Act anticipates that any noise coming from the premises should be disturbing members of the public, for example, in the street or residing locally—otherwise it could not constitute a nuisance".
	What, then, is the difference between a nuisance coming from recorded music as opposed to live music?

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I totally support my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. If Verdi's "Requiem" is banged out very loudly on a mega-something thing which our children all buy to record music on, that would make much more noise than four people on a zither in a pub. Surely the issue is the upset to outsiders, and it will vary from place to place. We must therefore try and look at this as grown-ups rather than as the Government are doing. They are regulating; they are saying that we can do this with zithers but not that with machines which make a lot of noise. At the upper end, only dogs can hear them, anyway. That is where it is going wrong.
	We should be addressing our minds to the noise and disturbance made by people outside pubs or places of entertainment, rather than to whether music is recorded, live, amplified live or non-amplified live. The amount of nuisance will vary from place to place. If a concert takes place in the middle of Salisbury Plain, it will make less environmental impact than in Chester Row in Westminster. I suggest that the Government are not addressing those judgments.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, if we had the survey commissioned by DEFRA on the implications for the control of noise by local authorities and the licensed trade that may arise from the new legislation, we would not be speaking in the dark about the nature of the nuisance that is arising or has arisen in relation to licensed premises in the past. The examples that have been given such as Verdi's "Requiem" and the full orchestra suggested by the Minister are both bizarre and improbable.
	We are talking about whether people have perceived any nuisance arising from live music in licensed premises in the past or whether they may do so in future as a result of the Bill. I believe that if the DEFRA survey had been made available to your Lordships, we would have seen clearly that live music is not a source of nuisance and that it should not be discriminated against as it is in the Bill.
	I deprecate the fact that we are trying to reach important conclusions about the Bill without having information that the Government ought to have made available to us. We were talking about the guidance at an earlier stage, and now we have that. I am now concerned about the DEFRA survey. I asked a question about it the other day and did not receive a satisfactory answer. I would like to know from the Minister why it is not possible to give your Lordships details of the replies to the survey so that we know the facts before we reach a decision.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, at some stage we shall need a definition of what is amplified and what is unamplified. I looked it up in the dictionary earlier. Amplify means enlarge, increase, augment, enhance, elaborate on or exaggerate. Many modern instruments make no sound unless an amplifier is used. An electronic piano has an amplifier in it to make it sound like a normal, unamplified piano. The issue will have to be clarified at some stage. It may come up later, but this may be an appropriate time for the Minister to consider it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have discussed the issues of live music at considerable length. These amendments give us the opportunity to consider the matter further. I welcome that.
	Amendment No. 8 would broaden the exemption for music that is incidental to other activities, from simply recorded music to all forms of music, live or recorded. I remind the House that on the previous amendment I said that however strong our aesthetic objections to incidental recorded music, none of us thought that it should be brought within the scope of the Bill, unless it is so loud as to cause a public nuisance and therefore go against the licensing objectives. I entirely understand the purpose behind the amendment, but it is born of the misconception that in some way the Bill will threaten guitar-playing in the corner of the pub, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, put it, or four people on a zither—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, means four people on four zithers.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that point had been drawn to my attention before the noble Lord pointed it out. The thought of four people on one zither gives me an immense amount of pleasure.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was just imagining the huddle. The thought gave me a lot of pleasure, but then, everything that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says gives me pleasure—up to a point.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, flattery will get the noble Lord absolutely everywhere. I lap it up.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not getting me anywhere, so I shall stop it.
	The amendment would address that perceived threat by drawing a hard and fast line across the face of a flexible Bill. The exemption for recorded music is designed to cover background music in lifts, supermarkets or restaurants or provisions such as juke boxes in pubs. It is clear that a lot of us would like to do something about it. However, primary legislation would certainly be the wrong way of achieving that noble end, as our society is tolerant about views and tastes. All we can do is seek to persuade people of the error of their ways.
	Some people argue that recorded background music can give rise to similar issues of nuisance and safety as live music, but we do not accept that that is the case. I have heard scare stories that the exemption will lead to neighbourhoods blighted by juke boxes blasting music through the doors and windows of pubs. That seems unlikely. People go to pubs to talk to each other and drink. Very loud music of a kind that would cause a nuisance outside the premises would defeat that object. Any licensee who knows what is good for his business would not turn the volume up so high that it was impossible to talk. On the rare occasions on which that happens, measures can be taken to stop it. It would be difficult to argue that the music was incidental to another activity, so the foundation of the exemption could be challenged. That would put the licensee at risk of committing the offence at Clause 134 of carrying on a licensable activity without an authorisation, with all the implications for penalties and ultimately the potential for forfeiture of the personal licence.
	The Bill provides strong powers for the police to close premises that are giving rise to noise nuisance. Those powers have been in place since December 2001 for premises with a justice's licence to sell alcohol. It is true that they have been used in only a handful of cases, but the police tell us that that is because the powers have been shown to be a useful deterrent. The Bill will extend the powers to cover all licensed premises.
	Finally, where supposedly incidental recorded music is giving rise to nuisance, it is open to the responsible authorities, including the police and interested parties, including anyone living nearby, to request a review of the premises licence.
	It has been said that all those issues can apply to live incidental music as well as recorded music. They can, but live music is different from recorded music. For example, it often requires cabling and finding a place to put the performers, which can affect access to fire exits or extinguishers. The sound produced by live music can often be far more penetrating than the average set of pub speakers. I am not saying that it always is, but it can be. It is often more difficult to restrict the volume to a level that is commensurate with the idea of incidental music. We are talking about incidental music, not music that is a performance for an audience.
	I totally accept that piano playing in the background of a restaurant is unlikely to give rise to issues of disorder or safety, but the range of music goes wider than that. That is why it is dangerous to draw hard and fast dividing lines. The approach we have set out in the Bill, complemented by the range of measures we announced on 18th February, some of which are contained in amendments that we have tabled on Report, provides the flexibility to ensure that the kind of activities that give rise to no significant issues of safety or nuisance are allowed to proceed unhindered, while at the same time avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
	For example, in Amendment No. 218 we ensure that only those concerned with the organisation and management of regulated entertainment rather than individual performers will be liable to the offence of carrying out regulated entertainment without a suitable permission. That puts the onus on the organiser to ensure that the necessary authorisation is in place. To ensure that licensees are not put off seeking these authorisations by the fear of disproportionate, inappropriate and expensive conditions being imposed by the local authority, we are working with a group drawn from representatives of performers, the music industry, the licensed trade and local government to inform us in drawing up the relevant sections of the guidance, which will provide clear distinctions about what might and might not constitute appropriate conditions to apply to licences that authorise live music. We have already said that a licence for the provision of entertainment, including live music, can be applied for at the same time as an alcohol licence and that there is no additional charge for it. I am sorry to say that the petition and a lot of the claims made by the Musicians' Union are based on that misconception.
	Amendment No. 12 also falls victim to the wide range of activities that come within the definition of regulated entertainment. It would exempt unamplified live incidental music from regulation under the Bill. The same arguments apply here. The amendment appears admirable, but it ignores the simple fact that many unamplified instruments can be loud and penetrating. Drums are an obvious example. In addition, with the package of measures that we have put in place, there is no need for the amendment.
	When the working group that we have convened has finished its work, the relevant sections of the guidance will draw clear distinctions about what might and might not be appropriate conditions for unamplified music. It will be flexible enough to cope with special situations such as the use of drum kits or other loud and penetrating unamplified instruments in a way that the Bill never could without increasing its length and complexity. While I am on that subject, it is not our intention to turn the guidance into regulations. We are proposing that the first issue of the guidance should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but it will still be guidance. Authorities will have to have regard to it rather than being obliged to follow its every dot and comma. In maintaining the flexibility of guidance, we can tailor the system in the light of experience, subject to the safeguard that I have just referred to, which is a response to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
	Finally, by avoiding the drawing of hard and fast lines, we can avoid the kind of perverse disincentive that was in the existing "two in a bar" rule. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, confirm that he opposes that rule. In pubs, at least, it discouraged many forms of entertainment outside the narrow definition of entertainment covered by the exemption.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the issue of human rights. We have tabled amendments that will satisfy the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They deal with matters of proportionality, for purposes of compatibility with the European convention. The combination of a flexible Bill and flexible guidance gives licensing authorities the tools to tailor their approach to the appropriate level in individual cases.
	I have little to say about the Institute of Acoustics. The matter is referred to in the guidance, although I am not conscious of having referred to it in debate. The guidance simply used what was published. I understand that there may be a desire to revise the guidance for local authorities. That is fine, and can be taken into account.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister give way?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was about to conclude my remarks. I do not have anything else to say.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. I did not wish to delay or hamper him in any way—not that I could. We on these Benches might feel some dismay that we do not have the guidance in front of us now. That puts us at a great disadvantage. The Minister says that the guidance will be flexible, but does he recall the noble Lord, Lord Davies, saying that the guidance would provide the parameters within which the authority must comply?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the guidance has been available for some time. I am sorry that it did not reach the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but other noble Lords have had access to it.
	I shall be entirely clear about what guidance does and what the parliamentary authority for it is. The Select Committee requests that the first issue of the guidance should be subject to affirmative resolution procedures and that subsequent variations should be subject to negative resolution procedures, so that there is a degree of parliamentary control all the time. We have agreed to that—we are doing exactly what it wants. However, it is still guidance. It maintains a degree of flexibility, for which everyone involved has expressed a wish, including local authorities, the trade and everyone else with an interest. Local authorities will not be bound by every dot and comma of the guidance but must have regard to it and must have good acceptable reasons if they propose to depart from it.
	I am reluctant to oppose the amendments, because I know the good faith in which they are moved and the extent of public feeling about them. However, they are misconceived, and we cannot accept them.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that blocking a fire exit is an offence under the fire Acts?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe so.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He said that I was born of a misconception, which is an interesting phrase to use, but I will not hold it against him. However, that is the start of our differences of view.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord's father was a friend of mine, I should be especially careful about withdrawing any unfortunate misstatements.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I withdraw happily.
	The Minister referred to noise causing a disturbance. That is dealt with in one part of the Bill, but the amendments intend to give proportionality, as set out in the convention. He refers to people being assaulted when they pass a pub with a jukebox playing. That may be the case, but a large number of people like to go to pubs to listen to live music.
	The Minister in another place said how much he disliked folk music. I should declare an interest, as I work for the English Folk Dance and Song Society. That music is an acquired taste, too. Such performances give people the opportunity to listen to other types of music, although they may not result in mass participation. A few people playing in a pub should be regarded as proportionate, and the legislation should be proportionate, too.
	Noble Lords have referred to penalties and health and safety. The Minister has said that fire exits can be blocked, but health and safety legislation is clear on that point. If health and safety legislation is good enough for recorded music, it should be good enough for live music. The measures in the Bill would kill all spontaneity. I have been to many pubs in which, at the end of the evening, a guitar is taken out and someone starts playing. That is a fantastic thing to be able to do, but such activities would be put at risk if the publican for some reason failed to set them out in applying for an entertainment licence.
	The purpose of the Bill, as set out by the Minister, is to expand all the venues available for the production of live music, which would lead to a renaissance. I am tempted to refer to a renaissance of the regions, given that this is a DCMS Bill, but I do not want to take that line because that policy proved a slight disappointment in some respects, although it was helpful in others.
	The Minister said that the amendments would draw a line, and that is their purpose. They draw a line in the sand and state that, at a certain level, live music should be acceptable. In a mature society, we should have the right to listen to music in the circumstances that we are discussing, and performers of music should have the right to perform it. The Bill is deregulatory. The amendments do not affect the Bill's nature but support its aims. On that basis, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 115.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 110, line 30, after "service" insert ", or
	"(b) at a place of public religious worship,"

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, after thinking about this issue, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 10, which would exempt places of public religious worship from the need to obtain a licence for the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities. That will include instances in which the entertainment provided is secular. Amendment No. 11 is therefore unnecessary.
	Within Greater London, the provision of secular entertainment at places of public religious worship has for many years required a licence. The exemption that Amendment No. 10 will create reflects the current position outside Greater London where the provision of secular music in places of public religious worship is not licensable. The amendment is therefore adding to the deregulatory measures contained in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 10 will benefit religious institutions, music societies and other community groups and will further boost the diversity of cultural experience available to people and communities. The amendment will complement other measures in the Bill designed to foster live music by opening up even further the opportunities for musicians to perform. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to the Government for listening to the concerns about churches which we raised both on Second Reading and in Committee. There was unquestionably an outcry from many members of the public about the need to exempt those religious establishments.
	I seek reassurance from the Minister in relation to the amendment. Amendment No. 11, in my name, refers to "religious buildings" as opposed to religious meetings or services. Amendment No. 11 states:
	"Religious buildings
	The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in premises mainly used for public religious worship is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act".
	It is our hope and wish that both the spirit and the actuality of Amendment No. 11 reflect the Government's intention. We on these Benches seek to ensure that all forms of entertainment in religious buildings are exempt, as opposed to merely entertainment for the purposes of, or incidental to, religious meetings or services.
	Staff in the Public Bill Office assured us that government Amendment No. 10 is correct even though it inserts at page 110, line 30,
	"(b) at a place of public religious worship".
	As currently drafted, line 30 on page 110 contains no paragraph (a).
	I had proposed a different amendment to the Public Bill Office which read,
	"Religious buildings
	The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities
	(a) for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, a religious meeting or service, or
	(b) at a place of public religious worship,
	is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act".
	I hope that the Minister sees where I am coming from. The wording of Amendment No. 10 does not make sense in the context of the wording of the Bill.
	We have been approached by a number of noble Lords and people outside the Chamber who seek to ensure that the government amendment, which we are keen to endorse, exempts all forms of entertainment in religious buildings. I quote again from Amendment No. 11, which states:
	"The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in premises mainly used for public religious worship is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act".
	I give the example of bell ringing which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The Bill refers to entertainment in the context of religious meetings or services. Bell ringers may play bells in different parts of the country for a charitable purpose or otherwise. They want to be sure that, in doing so, they do not require a licence. A number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, are concerned about concerts which take place in many different kinds of religious buildings. Many of those concerts take place to raise funds to maintain those buildings.
	We welcome government Amendment No. 10 and want to support it. We do not wish to press Amendment No. 11 but we seek assurance from the Government that Amendment No. 10 covers,
	"The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in premises mainly used for public religious worship".
	We seek to ensure that that kind of entertainment will not be considered regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Bill.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this excellent amendment. My right honourable friend Alan Beith will be displeased if I do not mention disused chapels. Some disused chapels in the north—former places of religious worship—have trust status. Musical performances may take place in them for fund-raising purposes. Are such disused chapels included in the terms of the amendment? If they are not, will the Minister consider altering the guidance to include them?

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, all those responsible for places of public religious worship will be very grateful for the amendment we are discussing. I am grateful for the support from noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. I was particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in Committee as this is emphatically not a concession made to churches but, as the government amendment makes clear, to all places of public religious worship.
	As the noble Baroness said, the contents of our postbags show the depth of feeling on the matter. I believe that amateur music making traditions, so vital to many communities and so important in encouraging people of all ages to take part in musical or dramatic activities, would be badly curtailed if the Bill were not amended. As a legislative innocent, I presume that, if Amendment No. 10 is accepted, paragraph (a) will materialise at page 110, line 30.
	I hope that I am right in thinking that the amendment is couched in clear legal terms. I believe that the phrase,
	"place of public religious worship",
	has specific legal meaning in other contexts; it is not just a question of religious assemblies. There should be no ambiguity as to whether a particular place qualifies for the exemption we are discussing. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
	It is heartening that government Amendment No. 10 will free places of worship from the need to make impossible judgments as to whether a particular event is incidental to a religious service. Entertainment provided for the purposes of a religious meeting or service will be exempt, as will entertainment provided at a place of public religious worship. That is clear, simple and easy to understand on the part of all those who care for, or are responsible for, places of worship. It is not the intention of any such person to cause a public nuisance. I hope that no such person is likely to put on an event that would lead to nuisance. Indeed, the very absence of complaints about the present situation—the Government acknowledged that even the original proposals did not result from any specific problems in relation to entertainment in places of worship—should reassure Ministers.
	As the Minister reminded us, when tabling the amendment the Government made the welcome statement that they proposed to exempt buildings such as church and village halls and similar premises from licensing fees, even though those premises would need to undertake the necessary procedures. That is encouraging news for those who look after places of worship and community buildings. I note that no specific government amendment on that matter has been tabled although a measure has been tabled which would have a similar effect. I should be interested to know what the Government propose in that regard. Will the Minister be kind enough to give an undertaking on how it is intended to bring that welcome proposal into effect? I reiterate the thanks of all those of all faiths and denominations who are responsible for places of worship for a generous recognition, through government Amendment No. 10, of the wide role such places and buildings play in the community, and for the clarity of the amendment itself.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate said that the concession applies not only to churches but to all places of religious worship. Is the Minister sure that that is the case? As I understood it from speaking the other day to the director of National Church Watch—that organisation is concerned with offences that take place on religious premises or against persons in religious premises—the only services that are public in the true sense of the word are those in the Church of England.
	The divine service in the Church of England is open to any person who wishes to come through the doors and participate, but in all other churches the person who enters does so by means of a deemed licence, which can be withdrawn. That is also the case in the Church of England at any time other than a divine service. The director mentioned that because it was important in dealing with cases of misconduct in places of religious worship, as one could tell someone who, for example, entered a church outside the hours of divine service with a hat on or barechested, "That is an unseemly way in which to behave, so your licence to enter the premises is withdrawn and you may now leave". If the person did not leave, a policeman could be called to escort him off the premises.
	That rule extends not only to the Church of England outside the times of divine service, but to any other church or place of religious worship that is not part of the Christian faith. I am afraid that using the term "public religious worship", as the amendment does, may exclude many of the premises that we think that we are covering—all the non-conformist churches, Catholic churches and those of other denominations—where entertainments may take place. We would like to exempt them, but may find that we have failed to do so because of the use of the term "public". Will the Minister kindly look at that? If I am wrong, she could say so now. However, I do not expect to be given an answer off the cuff, so perhaps the matter could be considered before Third Reading.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I speak briefly to support the welcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, gave the Minister and to ask a question. Does the exemption apply to redundant churches? They range from somewhere such as St John's, Smith Square, down to one in my own town used regularly for concerts. It is used on one day a year for public worship, because the Historic Churches Preservation Trust insists on that. It is not regularly used for public worship, yet it is a church and is known as a church. I feel that it ought to fall within the definition that the Minister has given.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I should like to join those who thanked the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment, which will give great satisfaction to those of us who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill's passage.
	If I had to choose between the government amendment and that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I would prefer the latter, because one phrase in paragraph 9 of the schedule leaves a certain lingering doubt. The paragraph covers:
	"The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, a religious meeting".
	Does that cover a point that concerned me at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage? Those of us who try to support the structure, appearance and capabilities of ancient buildings—the building that I support is listed as class I by none other than the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and we arrange for charitable concerts—wonder whether we will be covered by purposes incidental to a religious meeting. It is not absolutely clear. I am sure that the intention is there, but I hope that we are not causing any difficulties.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, accurately reflected my views on bell ringing. I raise the subject only for the reason that I explained in my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on 15th February. A document described as a leaflet about the Bill has come into my hands. To my surprise, it contains a whole paragraph about bell ringing. I think that it must have been written before the stages of debate in which the subject was raised. A sentence in the leaflet gives rise to doubt when it states,
	"if an organised bell ringing event takes place for the public that would be licensable".
	We were given some extremely helpful and categoric statements by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at earlier stages that bell ringing was not a licensable activity. I moved an amendment in Committee to that effect. I was told by the noble Baroness that the amendment was entirely unnecessary and would not be required. I therefore withdrew it. I hope that she can ensure that if the leaflet is given further circulation, the offending sentence will be removed. If she can, that will close me down, otherwise I might have to come back to the subject at Third Reading.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I too very much welcome the amendment. I speak only because I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister say that Amendment No. 11 would be redundant if Amendment No. 10 was accepted. It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that Amendment No. 11 is much clearer than Amendment No. 10.
	My point follows what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, and from my interest as a patron of an orchestra. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is also a patron of the same orchestra. It mainly performs its evening concerts in churches in London. If the heading "Religious meetings or services" remains in the Bill, does that qualify Amendment No. 10? The great attraction of Amendment No. 11 is that its heading is "Religious buildings", which is very much clearer. Amendment No. 10 seeks to go beyond religious meetings or services, but the heading still remains in the Bill, so far as I can see.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by saying how very grateful I am to noble Lords for their welcome to the Government's change of mind on the issue and our amendment. I also want to explain that the wording has been agreed with all the main religious groups, so I believe that it satisfies them all that we are making a genuine change to the Bill.
	I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that bell-ringing will not require a licence. I want to reiterate what was stated quite clearly in Committee, and I hope that he will accept our good faith on that matter. Several noble Lords asked whether concerts would be covered by the amendment. They certainly will. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I can say that all forms of entertainment in places of public religious worship will be exempted. I hope that that is helpful to her.
	Several noble Lords asked about disused churches or disused chapels, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. If a church is not consecrated, it would not be covered by the exemption. The trigger is,
	"a place of public religious worship".
	That is the right wording, because it is an understood term and was agreed with the various religious groups consulted. Case law tells us that not only must the place be available to the public for religious worship, but it must be apparent that it is so available. I am not sure whether that covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I shall certainly take his question away and look at it again.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the chapels in HM Prisons are not consecrated, and that they would therefore not be covered by the exemption? Can she think of a way round that one?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not aware that chapels in prisons are not consecrated. I shall take away the issue that the noble Lord raised and examine it.

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that consecration is a technical term and that most places of public religious worship, even in the Christian tradition these days, are not legally consecrated? They have a lesser form of legal dedication. It is a particular term and the difficulty about prison chapels is not as substantial as may appear at first sight.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that was extremely helpful. I must admit that I am not terribly familiar with the niceties of the meaning of the terms "consecrated" and "deconsecrated" but I am glad to be reassured that the right reverend Prelate does not believe that that will be a problem.
	I say to the right reverend Prelate that it is indeed our intention that church halls, chapel halls and other similar buildings—village halls, parish halls and community halls—will be exempt from the fees associated with the provision of entertainment and entertainment facilities. A relevant amendment has not been tabled because we do not need one: the Secretary of State is already able to set fees at any level for any class of premises. We shall take this issue into account when setting the fees.
	I believe that I have answered all of the questions that were put to me. I hope that we shall now be able to go ahead with an arrangement that has existed in the rest of the country for a very long time; I hope that concerts and other forms of entertainment will be able to take place in churches and other places of religious worship without having to seek a licence.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes, will she kindly answer my question about the phrase in the leaflet that I mentioned?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not seen the leaflet to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, refers. I am confident that what he wants will happen and that there will be no particular problems in relation to the issue that he raised.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 110, line 32, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Unamplified music incidental to certain other activities
	(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music (and not comprising or including the playing of recorded music) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied and to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity that is not itself—
	(a) entertainment of a description falling within paragraph 2, or
	(b) the provision of entertainment facilities.
	(2) The conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are that—
	(a) the other activity referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is the subject of, and is undertaken in accordance with, a licence granted under this Act;
	(b) the live music being performed is not provided in whole or part by means of, or with the assistance of, electrical or electronic amplification, or made more readily audible by such amplification either in the place where the performance is occurring or in any other place."

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I believe that this amendment is not consequential on Amendment No. 8. On the understanding that it will be accepted, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 110, line 38, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Educational establishments
	The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act."

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we now turn to the question of educational establishments. We do so purely in relation to the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment. I make it absolutely clear from the start that we are not talking about the provision of alcohol in educational establishments. That is one of the problems with the Bill—there is much confusion about it in your Lordships' House and beyond; there are misconceptions about whether entertainment or alcohol is involved. It is unfortunate that although the Government had the opportunity of a fresh start in repealing the licensing laws, they confused the issue—not, I am sure, intentionally—with regard to entertainment and alcohol.
	In Committee, we discussed the issues raised in the example of a school concert when the local community is invited to attend and to pay for a ticket. The Minister responded by saying that if the public attended the event, it would be licensable because issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. I found that a curious response because if there are any public safety issues about members of the public attending a school event, surely there are public safety issues about children attending, for example, assembly in the same place. Is the Minister aware of any school in which children are safe but members of the public would not be safe?
	We in your Lordships' House know that schools are over-regulated and are already covered by many health and safety guidelines and regulations. Surely those are sufficient for members of the public attending a school concert. As regards public nuisance, children are by nature noisy. When schools finish for the day, children pour out of them and normally make an incredible amount of noise and create some disturbance in the streets surrounding the school and in the neighbourhood at large. Are the Government seriously saying that adults attending a school concert will cause a greater public nuisance than that?
	The Bill will impose yet more regulations on schools. As noble Lords know, teachers are already overburdened with regulation and paperwork. The bureaucracy is now so great that teachers have less time to teach and no time at all for extramural activities. We believe that it is time to call a halt to that bureaucracy and that enough is enough; using school premises for entertainment must be exempt from the legislation.
	I shall refer briefly to the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published on Monday 10th February 2003 and which has already been referred to. The committee referred to the proposed exemption for places of public religious worship and we are all extremely grateful to the Government for that. However, the committee said that that apparently random exemption for places of public religious worship might tend to undermine the argument for the rationality of the blanket licensing regime as a whole and could engage other human rights issues by appearing to discriminate against occupiers and users of non-religious premises. We could list a number of different types of premises—we tried to do so in Committee—which we believe should be exempted. However, we on these Benches have been very constrained. We feel, after much consideration, that we should again propose that educational establishments at least—in addition to places of public religious worship—should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we support the amendment, which also appears in our name. There was some concern in Committee that the wording of the previous amendment would have allowed the premises of schools to be used by outside bodies for activities that would be outside the remit of the school. This amendment would close that loophole. It is only fair that schools, which are extremely heavily regulated—perhaps that is as it should be because that avoids as much risk as possible for those in the schools, although schools should not be over-regulated—should be given an exemption in the same way that churches have been given an exemption for logical reasons. On that basis, we support the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that the House has some sympathy with the aim of attempting to ensure that our schools do not have to be burdened with the administrative requirements of the Bill and the associated costs. However, I am afraid that we see many problems with the amendment. That includes the scope of the amendment as well as some points of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that in Committee a rather different amendment had been considered. One point about which we were concerned has been put right but I am afraid that other points still give rise to concern.
	First, on scope, the amendment uses the expression "educational establishment" without offering any more detailed definition. I remember from my previous job as a Minister in the Department for Education, when I handled a number of Bills, that the term "educational institution" is more commonly found in statute; it is used in the Bill and defined in Clause 16(3). It means a school or an institution within the further or higher education sector, within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, or a college, school, hall or other institution of a university, in circumstances where the university receives financial support under Section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The definition suggests what would be exempted by the amendment. It is not just about school plays, concerts and similar activities. It would draw in dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students. It can also be argued that it would include students' unions, which run and control nightclubs as serious businesses these days. I am afraid to say that their premises give rise to as many anxieties about alcohol consumption, disorder, noise nuisance and drugs as any similar commercial venture in towns and city centres. It would be reckless to bring within such an exemption the range of premises that might be affected by the amendment, so we have serious problems with its scope.
	I shall outline the points of principle. Entertainment is regulated under the Bill to achieve the licensing objectives, not least public safety. The establishments that would be at least partially exempted through the amendment host occasions that the public can attend. Occasionally, schools stage concerts and plays on a commercial basis. Just because those events take place at schools does not mean that the public should not be protected or expect to be protected. They are different kinds of events to those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which are entirely about activities for pupils and their parents.
	I remind the House that the reforms in the Bill are designed to establish a level playing field for all charitable and community bodies, with a light touch and an unbureaucratic system. To exclude some premises entirely from that while including others would not achieve that aim; it would introduce a measure of injustice.
	It might be sensible if I take the opportunity to clarify some of the points about entertainment in schools that have given rise to concern. First, it has been suggested that the teaching of music, including the performance of musical pieces in schools by teachers and pupils for other teachers and pupils, might have to be licensed. Of course that is not a licensable activity. Secondly, school concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit. If the charge is meant to do no more than cover the school's costs, no profit would be intended or made. Again, the qualifying conditions would not be met. If such a school concert or play is staged and those attending are invited to make a donation to the school but are not obliged to do so, the event would not be licensable. No charge is being made if only voluntary donations are sought.
	So the vast majority of school activities of that kind are already exempted by the Bill. School concerts are currently licensable activities under the existing legislation, although outside London the local authority may grant a reduction in fee if it considers that the entertainment is of an educational or other like character. So there is no exemption at present. Under the Bill, the key is where either the entertainment is intended to be provided for the public—in other words, anybody, whether connected with the school or not, is free to attend—or where a charge is made, and profit is the aim of the performance. We license commercial activity because the profit motive may override immediate concerns for public safety and public nuisance. We license places open to the public because every citizen should know that his or her interests will be safeguarded regardless of whether the building is a school or community hall or a major commercial concert hall.
	If a school wants to go down the route of staging public concerts or activities that generate income, the licensing system is not overly burdensome, so I cannot agree with some of the claims that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made. Temporary event notices should not cost the organiser more than £20. They cover events lasting up to three days for fewer than 500 people. Five such events could be staged each year within the three terms. I do not think that a school administrator will find that a great burden. The noble Baroness's assertion that many teachers would be affected does not stand up to examination.
	If a school is more ambitious than that and wishes to plan larger and much more frequent events, it would need to obtain a premises licence, which would cost no more than £100 or so initially and £50 or so each year. But I would be surprised if many schools had the time or inclination for such activity. I can also give an undertaking that we will look at developing the guidance for licensing authorities to ensure that overly burdensome and disproportionate conditions are not imposed on schools beyond that which is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of performers and audiences alike and to address the other licensing objectives. We want to ensure that music and other cultural activities thrive in schools, and nothing in the Bill will deny that intention.
	In conclusion, although I know that the amendment was tabled with the best of intentions, I ask the noble Baroness not to press it, for reasons of both scope and principle.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full response. It was similar to her response in Committee, which she made with some pressure, urging us to rethink our amendment. Following Committee stage, we reduced the scope of our amendment to include educational establishments only, rather than looking to hospitals, museums and prisons as we did originally.
	I cannot accept the Minister's claim that the provision will not be more burdensome on schools. We must question why the Government have chosen to except churches—we are very happy about that—but, for all similar reasons, schools cannot be excepted. I hear what the Minister says on students' unions and student bars. But we are talking simply about the performance of entertainment, not situations where alcohol is served in educational establishments. We do not wish to discriminate against different forms of educational establishments. We believe that proportionality is very important. The Government have not made the case for having an additional layer of bureaucracy for schools to cope with.
	All the licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm—are already clearly covered by current regulations, with which schools and other educational establishments must comply. I thank the Minister for her response. I do not accept what she has said. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 107.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Energy White Paper

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a Statement about the energy White Paper, which I and my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Transport are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
	"At the same time, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is publishing the Government's response to the 22nd report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Energy—the Changing Climate. I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the written Statement on British Energy that I made this morning.
	"Mr Speaker, I regret as much as I am sure you do that drafts of the White Paper have been leaked over the past few days. Such action is a discourtesy to the House and I deplore it wholeheartedly.
	"This White Paper sets out a new energy policy, designed to deal with the three major challenges that now confront our energy system. The first is the challenge of climate change. CO2 levels, which have already risen by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution, are now rising faster than ever before.
	"The scientific evidence is quite clear that the consequences of rising global temperatures could be devastating not only in Britain, where floods and storms could cause billions of pounds' worth of damage, but even more so in developing countries where millions of people could be exposed to disease, hunger and flooding.
	"Secondly, we face the challenge of our declining indigenous energy supplies. Already we import nearly half the coal we use. By 2006, we shall be a net importer of gas and, by 2010, of oil. By 2020, we could be dependent on imported fuel for three-quarters of our total primary energy needs. As we move from being an exporter to an importer of energy, we need new approaches to reduce the risk of price fluctuations and political instability or conflicts in other parts of the world.
	"The third challenge is that of keeping our energy infrastructure up to date with changing technologies and needs. Much of our infrastructure will need to be updated over the next 20 years, particularly to adapt to far higher levels of renewable electricity and to accommodate gas imports.
	"Our four new goals for energy policy are: first, cutting greenhouse gas emissions; secondly, securing reliable energy supplies; thirdly, maintaining competitive energy markets in the UK and beyond; and, fourthly, ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
	"The United Kingdom is already on course to achieve our Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Today, we are making a further commitment to cut UK carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by about 2050, with real progress by 2020. That was the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We are accepting it.
	"Of course, our own actions will affect climate change only if they are part of a concerted international effort. A key objective of British foreign policy in future will therefore be to secure ambitious international commitments to cutting CO2 emissions.
	"At the heart of our new framework for energy policy will be a carbon trading system. A new Europe-wide scheme is planned for 2005. It will create a powerful incentive to producers and consumers to use less energy and to switch to lower or zero carbon forms of electricity.
	"The cheapest way to tackle all our energy goals is simply to use less energy. But we shall need to achieve far more on energy efficiency in the next 20 years than we have achieved in the last 20 years. Building on the climate change programme, we have therefore decided to consult on an expansion of the energy efficiency commitment to run from 2005 until at least 2008 at possibly twice its current level of activity, and we shall work with energy suppliers and Ofgem to create an effective market in energy services; to bring forward to 2005 the revision of building regulations, with higher standards for efficiency both in new buildings and in refurbishments; to work with our European partners to agree higher standards for consumer and industrial appliances; and to set an example within government, improving energy efficiency in our own buildings and procurement.
	"Last year we introduced a renewables obligation to help to deliver our target of 10 per cent renewables electricity by 2010. By that date, the renewables obligation and the exemption from the climate change levy will be worth £1 billion a year to the renewables industry.
	"We believe that renewable sources of energy will increasingly demonstrate that they can achieve our goals at an acceptable cost. Our further aspiration is therefore to double renewables' share of electricity from our 2010 target by 2020.
	"The White Paper sets out policies to achieve that by investing £60 million in new money for renewable energy projects, bringing spending on renewable energy up to £348 million over four years; simplifying and streamlining the planning system; taking steps with Ofgem and others to improve access by renewable generators to the electricity network; and setting out a new strategic framework for offshore wind.
	"Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity. But its current economics make it an unattractive option and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved. The White Paper does not contain proposals for building new nuclear power stations but does not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets. Any further decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations would only follow a full public consultation and publication of a further White Paper.
	"Transport, which accounts for around a third of final energy use, will also play its part. We shall continue to improve vehicles' fuel efficiency and to cut carbon emissions through the very successful EU voluntary agreements with car makers. Vehicle taxation now encourages and rewards consumers for choosing clean, low-carbon vehicles. We shall start to make substantial use of low-carbon biofuels. That builds on the policies that we set out in our powering future vehicles strategy, and we welcome industry and other stakeholders' engagement through the new low carbon vehicle partnership.
	"In this White Paper, we set out a package of measures to support new energy technologies, including a new industry network on fuel cells and further work on the transition to a hydrogen economy. I also welcome the research councils' proposal for a new energy research centre.
	"Turning to energy reliability, becoming an energy importer does not necessarily make it harder to deliver energy reliability. Most other leading industrial nations have achieved economic growth as energy importers and we shall be able to do the same. Securing reliable energy supplies will be an increasingly important part of our European and foreign policy.
	"We have already secured a commitment to EU energy liberalisation for industrial customers by 2004 and overall by 2007. That will improve our access to different sources of supply and allow UK companies to compete in wider markets. Competitive markets, as well as keeping prices affordable, also create the right environment for infrastructure investment that will increase our capacity to import gas through the existing interconnector. Renewables and smaller-scale distributed generation will also help to promote greater diversity and security.
	"Coal generation provides around a third of our electricity, increases flexibility and contributes to diversity of supplies. The future for coal electricity generation lies in cleaner coal technologies or carbon capture and storage. We already have a programme of support for cleaner technologies and the White Paper includes proposals on capture and storage. Separately we propose to introduce an investment aid scheme to help existing pits to develop new coal reserves, where they are economically viable, and to help to safeguard jobs, and we have already negotiated the flexibility required at an EU level to enable us to do that.
	"Tackling fuel poverty remains a key priority. In 1996 there were 5.5 million UK households in fuel poverty. Today, there are around 3 million; 2 million of those are vulnerable households—older households, families with children or householders who are disabled or have a long-term illness.
	"In 2001, our fuel poverty strategy set out policies to end fuel poverty in vulnerable households by 2010. We further aim that, as far as reasonably practical, nobody in Britain should be living in fuel poverty by 2016–18.
	"Eradicating fuel poverty requires action in homes through better insulation and heating systems. We are tackling that through programmes such as Warm Front and the energy efficiency commitment. We shall publish our first annual report on our fuel poverty strategy shortly, giving more detail of the progress being made.
	"Today's White Paper sets out an energy policy for the long term. It will give energy producers and industry the long-term market framework that they need to invest and to plan with confidence. It will ensure that consumers can continue to rely upon safe, affordable energy for all their needs. And it will help us to play a leading role in meeting the challenge of climate change. I commend the White Paper to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I hope that it is not too disappointing for him when I say that the White Paper is a deeply disturbing document because it poses many questions but gives few answers. I shall refer to that later. In view of that shortage of answers, why has the White Paper taken so long to see the light of day?
	I note the Statement's comments that the Minister in another place regrets the many leaks of the White Paper during the past few days. It is extremely disturbing that there have been so many leaks in the newspapers, on television or on radio. Many members of the public will be unaware that Statements are supposed to be made in the Houses of Parliament in the first instance. This is becoming an everyday occurrence. When will it stop? It is nice to have an apology today that it has happened, but when will it stop? Will the Government do their usual thing and set up a leak inquiry or a taskforce to deal with leaks?
	Those may seem frivolous questions, but Parliament not being told in advance of such leaks is a matter of constitutional importance. As the Minister was gracious enough to pass on regret that that happened, perhaps the Government will consider how to try to stop it happening in future.
	On the "Today" programme this morning, it was said that the White Paper was long in aspirations but short in targets, which leads me to ask the Minister to clarify what is the difference between a target and an aspiration. Will he clarify for the record whether, when the Government know that a target will not be met, they suddenly downgrade it and call it an aspiration?
	In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister congratulates the Government by saying that they are,
	"putting the UK on a path to a 60% reduction in its carbon dioxide emissions by 2050".
	As the Minister repeated, that is one recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Presumably, using the word "path" means that that is an aspiration, not a target. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that. Of course, even if it were only an aspiration, it is an admirable one that we would all support, but we need to know whether there is any possibility of achieving it. How is it to be achieved?
	The Minister repeated that there will not be new nuclear power stations when the existing ones are finally decommissioned—they will not be replaced. They do not produce carbon dioxide, despite paying the climate change levy; but they provide much of the electricity that we use. Among other things, the White Paper offers renewables as one solution to fill the gap. Of course we on this side of the House want renewables to produce even more of our energy, but the idea that they could replace the amount to be lost is a little far-fetched. I should be most grateful if the Minister would answer that point.
	The Minister mentioned that under Kyoto, we had a target of 10 per cent renewable energy by 2010. That was extended to 20 per cent by 2020 in the United Kingdom, but has now been downgraded to an aspiration. Hence my original question: if the Government decide that they cannot meet a target, will it be usual to turn it into an aspiration?
	I said that the review was deeply disturbing. It certainly is. Britain's energy needs will not be met by a hope, a prayer and an aspiration. Britain's energy industry is now vulnerable, and the Government must recognise that renewables alone simply cannot make up the gap. Of course, the Minister will tell me that that will involve not renewables alone but other sources, on which I shall touch later.
	However, wind power is one source that the Government are considering. I stand to be corrected by the Minister, but I believe that by the end of 2001, we had 70 wind farms. The Performance and Innovation Unit stated that to meet our target for renewables, we would need 20,000 wind farms. There is quite a difference between 70 and 20,000. My arithmetic is not that great, but I think that that means that we must find 19,930 during the next 17 years. That comes to 22 a week, or three a day. We have built 70 over quite a period and now we suddenly imagine that by investing some money we shall arrive at three a day.
	Is that possible? Can the Minister tell us how that will happen? What are the visual environmental implications of that? Where will those wind farms be placed—in parks or off-shore? Can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to scrap or in some way weaken existing planning controls on wind farms in our moorlands and along our coasts to make that possible?
	The White Paper tells us that the Government will be investing £1 billion a year in renewables by 2010. What is the current level of funding—which, as I mentioned, has produced only 70 wind farms? Is the £1 billion funding secured in forward spending programmes? Is that also just an aspiration and spin, or will it be there?
	On the subject of renewables, I was surprised to read in the press that government sources are today talking of confronting President Bush over energy. I did not think that we were in the business of confronting the President at this moment. Perhaps I have missed something. Have the Government read the President's State of the Union message? In it, he committed himself to major investment in the search to develop hydrogen-powered cars. What is our policy on that? Where is our drive for hydrogen power? Indeed, is there a date—a target or an aspiration—by which all government cars will have been converted to low carbon fuels to set an example to the public and others?
	When setting targets, how far have the Government considered the impact on United Kingdom businesses? Are we heading for a repeat of the ill-thought-out climate change levy? Are the Government considering a range of incentives to encourage United Kingdom businesses to meet their ambitious targets? If so, what are those incentives? Will that mean more fiddling with the minutiae of the tax system? British manufacturers are today urging the Chancellor to stop taking in tax money that they could reinvest. Will the Government listen?
	I should appreciate clarification of how the Government intend to meet the targets in the White Paper without damaging British business. Specifically, can the Minister tell us whether the Government are considering extending agreements for small and medium-sized companies to obtain discounts on the climate change levy?
	The White Paper says that we will be net importers of gas by 2006 and of oil by 2010. It warns:
	"we may become potentially more vulnerable to price fluctuations and interruptions to supply caused by regulatory failures, political instability or conflict in other parts of the world".
	How far will our energy needs dictate our diplomatic policies with regard to nations in the Middle East, Russia and the Caspian countries? How do the Government propose to balance the frequently competing interests of those countries? What is the noble Lord's latest projection for the development of new pipelines to convey Caspian basin oil? What role will the EU play? Do the Government support the idea, floated by some experts in France, of an EU energy procurement strategy? Will the Government give a firm commitment that they will put the United Kingdom's national interests first?
	Many noble Lords will have hoped for more encouraging words on the subject of coal than the skimpy mention in the White Paper. Can the noble Lord give the House more details of the new aid planned for the coal industry after the end of the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme? How much will be spent? When will it start being spent?
	What is the Government's policy on nuclear energy? On the one hand, the White Paper says that no new build is proposed; on the other hand, the Government say that they do not rule out future build to meet the carbon targets—a 60 per cent reduction target laid down by the Prime Minister. Which is it? Will it be a non-nuclear future or a nuclear future? What is the point of re-visiting the issue in five years? It will be too late to do anything about it then. The Government seem to want to play all the balls in all the ways. Or is there a third way, about which Ministers have not yet told us?
	What impact will the strategy have on domestic energy prices overall? The paper says that new policies will add between 5 and 15 per cent to household electricity bills. To those who use most lighting and heating—the elderly, who are in their home all day, and young women with their children—15 per cent is an enormous amount of money. It is not correct just to brush that aside. People will be punished for using more energy. I note that the Statement says that the best thing to do is not to use it and that, if we use less, everything will be well. Some people will continue to use more. How will the increases be phased in?
	The White Paper also talks of new charges on air travel, to add to existing taxes. By how much do the Government think it necessary to raise the cost of holiday travel by 2010?
	As I read the White Paper—the product of years of toil—I felt that I had never come across a more depressing catalogue of words. The paper talks repeatedly of working parties and reviews. It uses the phrases "We will consider", "We will explore" and "We will examine". We should have got there by now and should not still be exploring, reviewing, looking at or considering things. We have been waiting for the paper for ever. This is not an energy policy. It is a long-winded document, which acts as a fig-leaf to hide the fact that there is no energy policy in it.
	In conclusion, I quote the Government's summary:
	"We have reviewed what we will need to have achieved by 2020 if we are to be confident we are moving in the right direction, fast enough, to deliver our aims for 2050".
	It continues:
	"We have not sought to define every detail of the policies we need to pursue over the next 20 years and beyond . . . That would not be realistic".
	So, they are not doing that. Does not the country expect that the energy policy review will say what the policy is? The Minister shakes his head; I do not blame him. We should not still be reviewing, considering and setting up working parties. That failure shows the real emptiness of the White Paper.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, in making my remarks on the Statement, I declare an interest as chairman of Micropower. I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, but I must say that, although I find it a worthy, well written document—as all government documents are—I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, find it disappointing. It repeats a good deal of what is already known or has been said, particularly in the admirable PIU report produced a year ago. It avoids the fundamental issue of the future of nuclear power, a matter to which the noble Baroness referred. The White Paper suggests some new policies, but, on the whole, it is more of an aspirational than a determinist document. That is the impression that it leaves.
	I shall consider the White Paper from three points of view: the encouragement of clean energy; the encouragement of energy efficiency; and the problem of security of supply. The clean energy aspect is overshadowed by the lack of decision on nuclear energy. I had expected that the document would decide one way or the other. If the Government had decided to go ahead with the construction of new nuclear stations, they should have addressed the problems of nuclear waste, capital costs and security. If, on the other hand, they had decided that there was no need or desire for the construction of new nuclear stations when the present stations come to the end of their life, they should have addressed what is becoming known as the "generation gap". How will the gap be filled in a way that will not harm the atmosphere?
	In fact, neither of those things were done, and we have been left in a sort of limbo, in which the issue will be reconsidered in five years' time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, that could be too late. If the Government were to decide to go ahead with new nuclear stations then, the time that it takes to get planning consent, investment and so on would mean that there could be a serious gap between the output of existing stations on the point of being phased out and the input of any new stations.
	We could assume that the Government's thinking is that, on the whole, they do not want any further nuclear stations. That seems to be the implication. In that case, I would have hoped to have seen a more determined approach to the production of the clean energy that is to replace the nuclear energy. The Government continue to support renewables, but there are other ways in which clean energy can be provided. Although the report mentions the substantial contribution that can be made by combined heat and power, there is no recognition of the serious difficulty in which CHP finds itself. There have been no new CHP plants for some time, and their contribution has been reduced. Unless there is a major new initiative, the contribution of combined heat and power, by which the Government set so much store, will fail.
	The simplest way of dealing with that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I referred to at the time of the passage of the Utilities Bill. That is to establish a CHP obligation. In other words, we should treat CHP on the same basis as renewables and get the enormous benefit of almost doubling the efficiency of power generation as a result.
	On a more positive note, I see that Ofgem is working closely on ways in which distributed generation—another way of adding to the efficiency of generation by having it more localised—can be established and the obstacles overcome. That is overdue, but it is satisfactory to note that the Government are committed to it.
	On clean energy generally, there ought to be an overall approach to all aspects of clean energy, so that the same degree of commitment applied to renewables can be applied to the others. Clean coal technology, to which the noble Baroness referred, comes into that category. I am glad that it has been referred to. What is very necessary is that some clean coal technology plants are established together with CO2 removal.
	On the question of energy efficiency, in my opinion, the biggest point missed is that householders today have little incentive to save energy. Energy is relatively cheap and is a small part of household bills. The fuel poor to which the noble Lord referred are being helped separately, but general domestic users are not sufficiently incentivised to save on energy. I do not see in the White Paper any way in which users would be so stimulated. I cannot see the major savings in the domestic consumption of energy that are envisaged in the White Paper.
	On the security of supply, the real problem is with gas. If present trends continue and gas is maintained as the main fuel for electricity generation, as the White Paper estimates, this country will be 80 per cent dependent on imports of gas by 2020. That will raise all sorts of strategic problems to which the White Paper, indeed, refers. The way around these problems is to tackle all the alternatives more vigorously than is done in the White Paper.
	This is not the end of the story. In the final chapter of the White Paper, reference is made to the continuing work which will be undertaken by the new Energy Strategy Unit of the DTI. Let us hope that the gaps in the White Paper will be filled. In this House, we must be ever-vigilant that that is carried forward.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. She asked what is the nature of this document and why has it taken so long to produce. It has taken so long to produce, first, because detailed consultations took place and, secondly, because these are extremely complicated issues and there are a range of targets and objectives which energy policy must meet. It is unrealistic and wrong to suggest that the way this issue should be approached is to set out a 10 or 20-year plan which states exactly what the energy sources are and the specific needs that they will address, and that a long-range plan is produced worthy of the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist Party.
	We live in a world of markets, innovation and changing energy sources. I believe that the Government are right in seeking to set out a strategy and framework on which to build incentives to help us achieve our environmental goals. Above all, to anyone who has examined this area, it is fundamental to build in flexibility. To state at this point that we shall lay down exact energy sources and exact incentives which will apply over the next 50 years, misunderstands the fact that we are dealing here with a whole range of totally unpredictable factors. The only sensible thing to do—as I am sure that the public will understand—is to set a framework and to build in incentives to achieve desired goals and to keep flexibility.
	In that context, I turn to the difference between a target and an aspiration. A target is something in which one can be precise, with a good understanding of what the costs of achieving it will be. That is why we have set a target for 2010. However, looking at a figure of renewables for 2020 without knowing costs, to say that we will achieve it regardless of cost or any implications is foolish. We cannot know the costs. Therefore, the Government have said that they have an aspiration. Clearly, in the light of the costs of different kinds of renewable, one should keep that under review as one goes along.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, was concerned about being put on a path to a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions. Clearly, that cannot be achieved on day one. In the document we have projected a reasonable line between our position now and the position we want in 2050. We have stated our aims beyond that line in order that we can say that we are on a path to getting there.
	The noble Baroness also raised the issue of nuclear power. What is the way in which a policy in this area should be approached? At present, our preference is to achieve this through renewables. Nuclear power is an important source of carbon-free electricity, although it is currently economically unattractive and there are important issues concerning the disposal of nuclear waste to be resolved. However, we believe that the ambitious progress on renewables and energy efficiency is achievable. But again, it is uncertain. While the White Paper does not contain specific proposals to support the construction of new nuclear power stations now, it affirms that new nuclear power stations remain—as I think they should be—an option for the future. Whether they become an important option depends on the progress made in other areas.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of the £1 billion renewables obligation. The renewables obligation will give a £1 billion incentive to renewables because that is built into the renewables obligation figures. I am not certain from where the noble Baroness's figures have come for wind turbines. We are not saying that the 10 per cent should all come from wind and, particularly, not from onshore wind. We have produced a set of figures which show how the whole range of renewables from biomass, onshore/offshore wind, landfill gas and photovoltaics can contribute to our goals in 2010 and 2020.
	Having been rather dismissive of targets, the noble Baroness then raised them in the sense of the hydrogen economy. Looking at the documents and what we said on the field of transport, the powering future vehicles strategy made clear that our objective is that the UK should head the global shift towards a low carbon economy. We have taken steps which are set out on these questions. Equally, we have set out clearly what the Government will do in terms of investment in capital costs of coal. We have covered nuclear.
	The other important question that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised was the cost of going green. What would be the cost to industry? Our analysis suggests that the cost of making 60 per cent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is likely to be only 0.5 to 2 per cent of GDP by that time, which is likely to have tripled, should we act with other industrialised countries. In the worst case scenario in which other countries take no action to reduce carbon emissions, some UK industries facing intense international competition could experience overall cost increases of 1 per cent or more. Those cost estimates would occur over the period to 2020.
	I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I have covered the position on nuclear and why that is a decision to be taken in the future. We shall make progress towards our goal even if we do not have nuclear because we shall be producing renewables to meet the targets set. Of course, the move towards gas will be helpful in meeting those targets.
	Furthermore, we concluded from our modelling that CHP would not provide carbon savings cost effectively. For that reason, we have not included a CHP obligation. We have a target of 2010 for 10 gigawatts of Good Quality CHP. We believe that that is within reach and we will strive to attain it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I have previously discussed clean coal technology. The Government believe that what is needed has been demonstrated and that it is now for people to come forward with commercial propositions.
	The White Paper sets out clearly how we will increase energy efficiency. That includes extending the energy efficiency commitment beyond 2005 for domestic suppliers; bringing forward to 2005 the building regulations for new build and existing stock; and progressively raising building standards so that in new houses by 2012 we will match the much higher levels of thermal efficiency that have been achieved elsewhere in Europe.
	Finally, on security of supply, we obtain gas from many parts of the world. We seek to achieve good relationships to provide the infrastructure and ensure that we have liberalised markets in Europe. All those aspects are being pursued.

Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not happy with the energy, fuel and power aspects of the Statement? Our annual imports of electricity from France are the equivalent of 5 million tonnes of coal; 12 million tonnes of coal are imported from 11 different countries; and gas imports are increasing. Indeed, we may be reliant on gas imports in due course. Therefore, as my noble friend indicated—but not as clearly and as frankly as I would have liked—security of supply has vanished. However, I am more concerned that our fuel supplies will be dependent on the politics of our suppliers—and I believe that that will continue ad infinitum.
	Furthermore, I notice the White Paper indicates that the coal industry will end within 10 years. Even with Coal Aid, the industry will have disappeared. But, worryingly, there is no planned nuclear expansion. In those circumstances, are we not in future danger—and quite soon—of a bleak fuel and power economy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, always on these issues one returns to the fact that there are three clear objectives: energy security, the environment and cost. One must balance those three objectives. We could opt entirely for security and state that the most secure option is to have all coal and perhaps nuclear power in this country. That would have huge cost implications as half our coal comes from abroad because it is much cheaper. There would also be major impacts in terms of environmental issues. Furthermore, as regards nuclear power there would be major issues in terms of cost and nuclear waste.
	I do not believe that that is the right way. We must balance the three objectives and ensure that sufficient security is built in because we will obtain gas from many parts of the world. Of the G8 countries, the UK and Canada are the only ones which are not major importers of energy. Other countries have survived well in terms of growth and security while obtaining energy from abroad. It is a question of the number of markets and their stability. Therefore, from today's perspective, sufficient security is built in.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I find the White Paper not only deeply disappointing but regret that so many key issues—not those 50 years away but those relating to today—have been seriously fudged? I want to give three examples.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the contribution which should be being made by combined heat and power. The document contains many columns expressing the importance which the Government place on CHP and the way in which they will reach their target, but the document contains no real measure that will have any hope of reaching their 2010 target. All the UK's leading producers of plant for CHP have withdrawn and even the Government's own CHP plant in Whitehall is operating for only four hours out of 24. It is not economic to operate it for longer. The Government are going backwards in terms of CHP. When the Minister spoke of aspirations, I looked at the immediate future and asked: what do the Government intend to do to deal with that problem? The answer appears to be nothing.
	Secondly, a number of us have been making representations during the past few years as regards coal mine methane. Methane is 23 times more damaging to the environment than CO2, so why have no positive measures been taken? The document is long on studies, discussions and hopes, but by the time anything has resulted from them most of the operators of coal mine methane plant in abandoned mines will have gone out of business.
	On nuclear power, the Government have included a column in the White Paper about skills. Is the Minister aware that in this country there is no single university course in nuclear engineering? How are the nuclear engineers to be provided if, as ultimately I believe they must in order to achieve the CO2 targets, the Government decide to embark on a rebuild?
	As regards the immediate future, when one looks at the White Paper the problems are fudged and ducked. I do not regard that as a realistic way of approaching these serious issues.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issues have not been fudged. The noble Lord may not like the answers, but that is different from fudging the issues. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we made clear our position on CHP. We do not see it making a major contribution, which is why we do not believe there should be a CHP obligation.
	We have previously debated the issue of coal mine methane and it is common ground that there are good reasons for doing something about it. However, it will make no contribution whatever to the central issues relating to energy supply in this country. There is no fudging of issues, but the noble Lord may not like the answers. We have not fudged the issues; we have taken a realistic appraisal of what CHP can contribute in this situation.
	As regards the nuclear option, there are actions we should take to maintain the skills base. They will be taken through the sector skill councils. In that way, we can maintain the base of skills for the future.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and indeed this long-awaited White Paper. As president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, I am disappointed that the Government have not put more emphasis on the important role that the liquid biofuel industry could play in helping Her Majesty's Government to meet their environmental commitments and, most importantly, in helping the beleaguered farming industry. Furthermore, biofuels would help to reduce the UK's reliance on imported fossil fuels, particularly in these uncertain times.
	Would the Minister not agree that it is shameful how our European partners are several leagues ahead of the UK where biofuel production is concerned?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are looking to biomass to make a contribution to our renewables targets in both 2010 and 2020. Alongside renewable produced hydrogen, fuels made from biomass represent an important potential route for achieving the goal of zero carbon transport. As the noble Lord said, it will create new opportunities for agriculture in the UK as well as globally. That is why we have reduced the duty on biodiesel to 20p per litre below the standard ultra-low sulphur diesel rate. This fuel is now coming onto the retail market in increasing volumes in a 5 per cent blend with conventional diesel. Some lorry fleets are also converting to a 100 per cent biodiesel fuelling.
	As announced in the Pre-Budget Report in November 2002, we propose to introduce the same 20p per litre incentive for bioethanol, subject to EU agreement. This can also be used in blends for existing cars and potentially as an 85 per cent pure biofuel in adapted cars. We are taking this issue very seriously. It is an important part of our plans, even though the document does not make any changes to the taxation proposals.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing energy efficiency, but can the Minister explain something that is not very clear to me? On the one hand, he said that the Government do not want to place too much emphasis on combined heat and power production—I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a heating company—but, on the other hand, they are placing great emphasis on energy efficiency. Combined heat and power is an efficient use of energy and I fail to see how the two do not tie in together.
	As to the warm front scheme mentioned in the Statement, the Government seem to be at least capping the money to be spent on the scheme next year, if not reducing it. That also does not seem to tie in with the policy.
	There are a lot of warm words in the document about the role of local authorities, in particular in regard to giving energy issues priority in their community plans. But, as far as I can make out from the planning Bill which will be before us in the future, there is not much opportunity for that to happen.
	Having been a sponsor of the Home Energy Conservation Act, I welcome the fact that the Government will review the existing guidance to energy conservation authorities. Can the Minister say precisely what the Government have in mind and what time scale they are talking about?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not see any discrepancy between our views on CHP and energy efficiency. It is a question of the weight we attach to the different parts of our energy policy. No one is saying that CHP is not important in its own right, but it bears no comparison to the greater energy efficiency we can achieve in other areas.
	As to planning and local authorities, the White Paper sets out proposals for simplifying and streamlining the planning system for renewable developments. It is an extremely important area. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish new planning guidance on renewables for England. A separate guidance on best practice will also be published. It is a practical way of helping to plan for renewables at a local level. If we are not prepared to improve the situation on planning permission we cannot achieve the targets on renewables.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government promised that every home would be heated and implied that something would be done about energy poverty. Can the Minister say how people in need will be identified? What will the Government do to find the homes that need help?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of energy for vulnerable people is very important. We have already made considerable progress in that regard. In 2001 there were 3 million fuel-poor households compared with 5.5 million in 1996. The main reasons for that are increases in household incomes and fuel price reductions. When Members of the House complain that energy prices have come down, they should remember that huge benefits occur in terms of fuel poverty. We shall continue to look at ways of improving the situation. We will use social services and other means to ensure that the most vulnerable people are targeted.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Minister accused my noble friend of failing to understand what should be encompassed in an energy policy, and then set out what he believes is appropriate to be in such an energy policy. Is my noble friend alone or have I misread the foreword by the Prime Minister? In the foreword, he seems to be promising us something positive and concrete in the substance of the report, but all we find is a series of fudges and aspirations.
	Will the Minister come clean? Is it not the case that the private opinion of the estimable Minister for Energy and Construction, Mr Brian Wilson, is that if the Government's objectives and international commitments are to be met, there is only way that will be achieved—and that is by having nuclear energy as part of the package?
	Is not the alarming outcome of the White Paper that there will be only one set of winners in Europe—and that is the generators of nuclear power in France?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously we have different views on what should be included in an energy strategy. I am really surprised that the noble and learned Lord is taking the view, which seems to be shared on his Benches, that the way you should plan or form a strategy is to lay out in detail exactly what the energy sources and demands will be—and how they should be matched—more than 20 years ahead. Noble Lords opposite should talk to their former Secretary of State for Energy, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who will tell them what an absolute load of rubbish that approach would be. You cannot do that. We cannot tell within six months what energy prices will be; we cannot possibly tell what technological developments will be made in the area of renewable energy sources.
	You cannot possibly commit to detailed future energy needs and sources, if that is what the noble and learned Lord is saying. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is saying that or something completely different, but you cannot lay out that kind of detail.
	The Prime Minister did not do that in the foreword to the White Paper. He is well aware that you cannot do that. All you can do is to announce targets which you will try to achieve—and we have made very clear what are our targets in regard to the achievement of environmental objectives—and, within that, you can say that you will create a framework and incentives. But to say that you will give the detail of what will be the energy sources is an extraordinary view of the kind of strategy you can have. I am surprised that so many noble Lords on the other side of the House would remotely support such a view.

Lord Carter: My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the Minister referred to the reduction in excise duty on biofuels. I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils. The excise duty is also referred to on page 69 of the White Paper.
	The rate of duty reduction has been just enough to encourage the recycling of vegetable oils and the surplus cooking oils of fish and chip shops. This accounts for the 5 per cent referred to in the White Paper. But the reduction in duty is not enough to encourage the production of significant quantities of biodiesel and bioethanol—fuels which provide a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions—from agricultural crops. Will my noble friend use his considerable powers of persuasion to persuade his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the level of duty rebate on these two fuels?
	If the UK was to have a soundly-based biodiesel and bioethanol industry, as there is in many countries around the world, there would be substantial environmental, economic and agricultural advantages. It would reduce CO2 emissions, boost the rural economy and provide an alternative use for agricultural crops.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, issues of tax are kept under constant review. This is the sort of issue to which, over time, we would expect changes to be made to reflect the circumstances of the day.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I welcome the references to energy efficiency and micro generation and also the oblique reference to a proper aviation taxation regime. However, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I am once again raising the subject of hydro generation. This is a proven technology; hydro has been with us for more than 50 years. It is acceptable in the landscape. Some 10 per cent of electricity generated in Scotland is from hydro generation.
	I should like to know why hydro seems to have fallen off the edge of the Government's thinking. Has it been abandoned? Rain is more reliable than wind in volume and can also be stored and used when required. Will the Government give a lead back towards hydro generation as well as all the other methods?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I understand the situation, the only reason that more attention is not given to hydro is that we are using all the capacity we have for hydro in Scotland. Therefore, there is not a great deal of further capacity to use. If I am wrong and there are huge opportunities for more hydro generation, I am sure the Government will look at the issue very seriously. But as I understand it, the amount of hydro that we have takes up pretty much all the capacity there is.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry, but the 20 minutes are up and we must move on.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
	[Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 [Provision of late night refreshment]:

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 113, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) the premises may be used for the exhibition of films by virtue of a premises licence."

Lord Luke: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 concerns premises being used for the exhibition of films by virtue of a premises licence. Currently, premises which hold a cinema licence are not required to register as night cafés in London or suppliers of late-night refreshments elsewhere, even where cinemas provide hot drinks or hot food, such as popcorn, after 11 p.m. Many cinemas are licensed to exhibit films after 11 p.m. They will be able, under the transitional provisions of Schedule 8, to apply in respect of their premises to be licensed for exhibition of a film based on their current licensable activities and conditions, which will then have to be replicated.
	Cinemas do not currently require a night café licence. They will be required, at the same time as applying for a conversion of their current licence, to seek a variation to be licensed to serve late-night refreshments. They are currently legally carrying out this activity without a licence.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said on 26th November last that the Bill will sweep away unnecessary red tape, yet it seems that new impositions are being introduced unnecessarily. Later in the Bill's proceedings, the noble Baroness stated:
	"The point of licensing night cafés is to deal with premises where people behave in a drunk or disorderly fashion".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 421.]
	This does not happen in cinemas.
	The draft guidance issued under Section 177 states at paragraph 6.11:
	"The purpose of the legislation is to cover primarily night cafés and take away food outlets where people may gather after 11.00 pm and until 5.00 am giving rise to the possibility of disorder and disturbance".
	To continue in a similar way, additional costs will be imposed on cinema operators and local authorities because it will be necessary to seek a variation during the transitional period. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add to what I said on this amendment in Committee. Schedule 2 defines the provision of late-night refreshment—that is, when the supply of hot food or drink between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. will be a licensable activity. All premises where licensable activities are carried on will be required to set out in their operating schedule the steps they propose to take to promote the licensing objectives.
	Amendment No. 18 would exempt the supply of hot food or hot drink from premises used for the exhibition of films under a premises licence from the definition of the provision of late-night refreshments. It is not clear why such premises should not have to set out what steps they propose to take to promote the licensing objectives in relation to the provision of late-night refreshment in exactly the same way as other premises providing late-night refreshment or as they have to in relation to showing films.
	The provision of late-night refreshment from cinemas has the potential to give rise to issues of public nuisance and safety just as it has from other places. If premises already have to apply for a premises licence for the showing of films, why should they not, at the same time, apply for an authorisation to provide late-night refreshment? That is not a great burden for them. Under the Bill, unlike the existing legislation, a single licence can cover both activities. I therefore very much hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. In view of what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Licensing authorities]:
	[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 3, line 1, at end insert—
	"( ) for purposes of personal licences, the Central Licensing Authority."

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 192, 196, 197 and 207. The purpose of the amendments is to introduce a central licensing authority or register. We went through this proposal at some length in Committee, and I did not agree with the Government's answers. At a recent meeting, the Government helpfully suggested that what we were trying to do they would expect to be done through a central register anyway. However, the inclusion of the amendments would take some of the burden off the local authorities because although they will have to register personal licences, it would be helpful if a central licensing authority or register could be initiated. That might stop the duplication of work and take some of the expensive provision away from local authorities.
	I do not think the local authorities would be giving up any powers they would want to keep because this would not prevent them from dealing with personal licences. It would also be helpful for those with personal licences who could then deal with a central authority, in the same way that DVLA deals with driving licences. Those with personal licences would not have to deal with the local authority where they originally applied.
	This much more centralised and useful system would, I believe, be cheaper for local authorities to run and would be helpful for those dealing with the new personal licences. I believe that it would save a great deal of money not just in the short term but the long term. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendments, to which my noble friend Lord Luke and I have added our names. I rarely describe a provision in a Bill as absurd, but I have no doubt that it is the right word for Clause 119. The clause deals with the determination of an application for the renewal of a personal licence. By subsection (1), the applicant must apply to the licensing authority that granted his original licence. This could be 30 or more years since the original licence was granted. The applicant may have moved hundreds of miles away. Subsection (2) provides:
	"If it appears to the authority that the applicant has been convicted of any relevant offence . . . the licensing authority must give notice . . . to the chief officer of police for its area",
	and not the area where the applicant may live or work.
	Under subsection (3), the chief officer of police of the area where the personal licence was originally granted can give an objection notice, but only if he,
	"is satisfied that renewing the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective".
	The chief officer of police of the area where the original personal licence was granted will have to form a view as to whether renewing the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective in an area that may be hundreds of miles away.
	Furthermore, under subsection (6), if an objection notice has been given, the authority where the original licence was granted must hold a hearing to consider the objection notice. This hearing could be miles away from where the applicant lives and works and will be attended by people who may know nothing about the applicant, as that applicant may not have lived in the area for 30 or more years. That is surely absurd as well.
	There is also a risk that a personal licence holder who has a criminal record that is known to the local licensing authority and the chief officer of police of the area where his licence is granted may decide to move hundreds of miles away and then apply for a new personal licence rather than renewing his original one. He could do so using an assumed name. He could do so confident that the local licensing authority and the chief officer of police of the area to which he has moved would have no idea that he had been convicted of a serious offence. In the absence of photographs and a central licensing authority, it would be difficult for the licensing authority or the chief officer of police to check that the applicant for a new licence was who he said he was. Cross-checking with every other licensing authority is not realistic.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, tabled the amendment with our support. His solution is that there should be some form of central licensing authority. That seems as good a solution as any and we wholeheartedly support the amendment. It has the attraction that there will be one file—and one file alone—in a central place for every applicant. That file would not move. Whoever is responsible for the central licensing authority could then make appropriate inquiries of the chief officer of police of the area where the applicant resides and works rather than where he resided when he originally applied for a licence. It would not matter where the applicant worked or resided if his application for a licence or the renewal of a licence was always made to a central point. Whoever is responsible for the central licensing authority could then make inquiries of the relevant chief officer of police. We believe that makes some sense. We therefore support the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendments are very similar to ones that were moved in Committee, when we had a useful debate. Perhaps there are some points that I failed to make during that debate and I can complete the argument from our point of view. I hope it might be possible to persuade your Lordships that the amendments are not desirable.
	It is true that the White Paper originally said:
	"To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database. It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance."
	However, that is not the same as setting up a new statutory body, as these amendments propose. The White Paper referred to the development of an electronic system to allow the police and licensing authorities to exchange information easily and freely. That is still our intention. It is very firmly a database and not a new statutory body.
	There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the development of a central database. On the contrary, Clause 8 expressly provides that the Secretary of State can arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities with respect to the requirement to keep a register to be discharged by means of one or more central registers. The Government actively support the development, in due course, of a central licensing register.
	However, setting up such a register would be a task of considerable practical complexity. It would have to join up the licensing functions of 410 authorities. I do not know of a single joined-up system of any significance that covers every local authority in England and Wales. That is not to say that we are not making progress. The Office of the e-Envoy has published and promoted a number of frameworks for wider integration of electronic systems in the public sector, setting standards for data storage and access. We expect local authorities to comply with that. Indeed, they would have to comply for it to be funded. However, even if the local authorities started to develop a system now, there is no guarantee that it could be up and running in less than several years—one always has to be careful with IT projects, so I shall not be more precise than that. A large proportion of the population and the industry are looking forward to the benefits that the new licensing system will provide. With the usual provisos, noble Lords opposite have expressed support for the objectives of the Bill. Setting up IT systems is not an adequate excuse for delay.
	We have drafted the Bill to allow a simple system, based on effective communication between licensing authorities, which can be up and running from Royal Assent, but also to provide for a central register to be developed in due course when that is possible. I am confident that the local system will work well up to that point. The licence holder will be under a duty to notify the licensing authority of a change of address, as well as other relevant details, such as, in accordance with Clause 130, convictions of relevant or foreign offences. It will not be a case of the licensing authority having to track down the licence holder.
	We expect there to be about 155,000 applications for personal licences during the transition period. That works out at an average of about 500 applications per licensing authority. Nearly all of those will be dealt with administratively, so we do not think this is too much of a burden. We expect there to be a turnover of about 6,500 personal licences every year—about 15 per local authority on average. That should be possible too. Our proposal represents no substantive change from the White Paper, on which we consulted. The only difference is that it recognises the complexities of setting up a central database and addresses them in a pragmatic way, without delaying the benefits of the reforms in the Bill.
	The same arguments apply to the even grander project of setting up a central licensing authority. In addition to a central database, there would have to be premises, staff, management structures and public money spent on an unnecessary organisation. It would not solve the problem, which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, addressed, of the ability of the police and the local licensing authority to keep up with licensees if they happen to move around the country.
	I have listened to the scenario of people moving. Let us say that someone who was granted a personal licence in Newcastle subsequently moves to Bournemouth. Under the Bill as drafted, if he wishes to renew his personal licence, he must apply to Newcastle. I understand the concerns that the police or the licensing authority in Newcastle might lose touch with the individual over time. However, it is important to consider the clear criteria that the licensing authority would apply when determining an application for renewal.
	First, when there have been no convictions for a relevant offence or a foreign offence since the licence was granted or renewed, the licence must be renewed automatically. That will be so in the overwhelming majority of cases. Under those circumstances, the licensing authority in Newcastle is just as capable as issuing the new licence as that in Bournemouth. There is no additional burden on the applicant. We often apply to agencies far removed from where we live when renewing our passport or driving licence.
	When such a conviction has occurred, the chief officer of police for that area may give an objection notice to the licensing authority if he or she is satisfied that, having regard to any conviction of the applicant for a relevant offence or comparable foreign offence, renewing the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. The licensing authority would hold a hearing to consider the objection notice. That is the point the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made. I would make two comments about what she said, if she were paying attention. Instead, she is being interrupted by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, whom I am glad to welcome to the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he stays there, because that would restrict the range of his interventions.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as Groucho Marx said of joining a club, I would not want to be in a club that would have me on its Front Bench.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not believe that this will lead to any extra burden on the police. All the circumstances of the individual would be readily available to the police in Newcastle. The courts would be under a duty to notify the relevant authority of the details when a personal licence holder was convicted of a relevant offence in accordance with Clause 129. The Bill will make it an offence for personal licence holders not to notify relevant or foreign offences to the relevant licensing authority in accordance with Clause 130. A personal licence holder who is charged with a relevant offence must produce to the court his personal licence or, if that is not practicable, notify the court of its existence and the identity of the relevant licensing authority in accordance with Clause 126. If he fails to comply with that clause without reasonable excuse, he will be committing an offence.
	As a result of these provisions, all the paperwork would already be on hand for the Newcastle police who would take broadly the same view of a conviction as those in Bournemouth. In any case, the police in Newcastle would be very accustomed to dealing with the police in many other authorities. That is what they do now, in many cases, under the "fit and proper person" arrangements.
	Secondly, it is true that if the individual wishes to attend the hearing in Newcastle, he or she is likely to have to travel. However, we must maintain a sense of perspective here. In the first place, we expect very few cases to require a hearing. Of those that have to be considered in that way, only a proportion are likely to have moved any significant distance. I would not say that the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, had no foundation, but if so, they are very marginal.
	The position we have set out is sensible and pragmatic. It allows for the development of a central register without delaying the commencement of the new arrangements unnecessarily. It does not provide for a central licensing authority, largely because that would require the unnecessary creation of a new statutory body for little added value.
	I know that there was scope for clarification of this kind, and I am sorry that I did not give it in full in Committee. The case has not been made for establishing a new statutory body, a new element of bureaucracy and a new possibility for things to go wrong.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister a question.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as this is Report stage, if the noble Lord has a question that is related to something that I said, he may ask it.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the Minister may already have answered my question. Who will be the owner of the central register or registers under Clause 8? It looks as though the Secretary of State might be the owner, as the clause says that he will appoint or authorise someone to run it. As everything else is run by the local authorities, however, perhaps they collectively might be the owners.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it could be either. The idea of a consortium of local authorities is perfectly sensible.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I do not have any difficulty with the points he raised. The system could well work in an organic way, growing as he suggested. However, in the slip he made about one simple system or one simple authority, he referred to the situation that we would prefer.
	The Minister referred to the possibility of police trying to trace individuals to Newcastle. Such an individual may have made many stops in between and may have been a manager during the 10 years of the period of the licence in many different parts of the country. The noble Lord pointed out that we already accept how we contact the passport office or obtain a driving licence. Those organisations work extremely well. What we suggest would be along those lines.
	The last point made by the Minister worried me most. We are creating a system that could be bureaucratic and create a paper chase. It especially concerns me that much of the work, and therefore the expense, will fall on the local authorities. In theory, that expense could be met under the licence fee. The Minister suggested that that might be an objective some time in the future, but we would like it to take place much more swiftly. He said that it might take many years to set up, but a system that involves 300,000 individuals does not need to take such a long time. The information will already be gathered, and it will be a simple case of collecting it from local authorities. If local authorities do not have that information online, I do not understand how the system can work after the transition. On that basis, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 111.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
	"CENTRAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
	(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Central Licensing Authority (in this Act referred to as "the Central Authority").
	(2) The functions of the Central Authority shall be—
	(a) to act as the licensing authority for personal licences under Part 6 of this Act, and
	(b) such other functions as may be conferred on it by an order made by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the membership and staff of the Central Authority.
	(4) The expenses of the Central Authority shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
	(5) Any order or regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and no order or regulations shall be made unless a draft of the order or regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 4 [General duties of licensing authorities]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) the protection of the amenity of the area;"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 23. Both amendments seek to tackle the question of "amenity". I am sure that I need not remind noble Lords of the impassioned and thorough debate we had in Committee on the impact of licensed premises on the amenities in the vicinity. There were numerous speeches on both sides of your Lordships' House from those who feared that the Bill as drafted did not sufficiently protect the interests of residents in the community. Discussion of the definition of nuisance led to much frustration. I would not like to say that the debate was fruitless, but we certainly failed to reach any firm conclusions about how to legislate on such an important area as the "quality of life" of communities.
	I shall, if I may, state the practicalities of the situation. The industry fears additional regulation and "frivolous" complaints by neighbours. The neighbours fear that a noisy pub will deprive them of much-needed sleep and bring with it all the unsavoury accompaniments of beer-fuelled young people. As we agreed in Committee, given that the balance or test which must be applied is too high, it is not sufficient to allow only one of the four licensing objectives that one could cite in relation to the overall subject matter—that of public nuisance.
	What is needed is a balance, which is what I am proposing in Amendment No. 23. I tabled the two amendments to make a point. The first amendment seeks to include,
	"the protection of the amenity of the area",
	as a fifth licensing objective. It responds to what I shall call the "residents' lobby"—those who fear the effect of increased trading hours in the licensed premises in their area. Their concerns, I should add, are justified. Despite forecasts and hypotheses, the Government have no idea how the new licensing system will work in practice, as demonstrated by the fact that DEFRA has now retained consultants to discover the impact on areas surrounding pubs, clubs and other such premises. It is a leap into the dark. The protection of amenity must be a licensing objective that the licensing authority must promote while performing its functions.
	The second amendment goes further and I think offers more in the way of proportionality and balance. "Amenity" is not just a word that applies to local residents; it can apply equally well to those running a licensed premises. Essentially, the amendment protects both parties in that it seeks to guide the licensing authorities to look for a balance between the best interests of both. It is all very well to propose four licensing objectives and insist that the licensing authorities have regard to them. We believe that the second amendment offers a better idea of how this policy will be implemented in practical terms when the licensing authorities come to make their crucial decision on whether to impose conditions or grant licences.
	We have had a conflict of interest throughout our consideration of the Bill. My amendments seek to include in the Bill the need for the licensing authorities to make decisions that offer a compromise and a sensible balance. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, we had a long debate on this matter in Committee. I should like to reiterate a few crucial issues. First, this clause reverberates through the Bill. If we do not get the definition of the licensing objectives right, frankly, nothing else will be right.
	Our principal objection is that the apparent protection from public nuisance is not as it would appear to a layman. That is to say, what is or is not a public nuisance as compared with a private nuisance is both highly complex in law and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, constitutes a very high hurdle to jump. I have sought in vain any case of public nuisance that involves merely noise with the exception of the case of R v Shorrock in which a rave was held which brought forth 475 complaints and was heard four miles away. That is the only such case that I have come across or have read about. We are not concerned here about raves or disorderly or anti-social conduct but rather the effects of normal conduct that takes place at abnormal times of day and night. What is perfectly legitimate conduct at 10 or 11 at night becomes at three or four in the morning—particularly in a country area—a disturbance which wakes up light sleepers, the old and the vulnerable. Amendment No. 23, to which I speak, is tabled to enable licensing authorities to take account of that situation.
	Unless that change is made, it will not even be open to residents in the immediate vicinity of a pub to raise complaints when a licence is being considered. As I said, the provisions of the clause reverberate throughout the Bill. One has a right of representation only in respect of one of the four licensing objectives. As I sought briefly to explain, that is a high hurdle to jump. As a matter of interest, one of the standard textbooks states:
	"There is perhaps no more impenetrable jungle in the entire law than that which surrounds the word 'nuisance'".
	Another textbook states:
	"Nuisance is the least satisfactory department of the law".
	To give some indication of the seriousness of public nuisance, it is a criminal and not a civil matter. There is no limit on the fine or imprisonment that can be imposed for a public order offence.
	We believe strongly that it is simply inadequate to leave the Bill as it is. It will not protect people who have a reasonable point to make. It will not even trigger the extensive powers which the police have under Clause 158 to close a pub since they can do so only on the basis of a breach of one of the four licensing objectives.
	On 17th December the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in responding to the amendment that I moved on that occasion, said that,
	"it would not be appropriate to provide a rigid meaning as to what constitutes a public nuisance".—[Official Report, 17/12/02; col. 560.]
	I totally agree. That is why we want to remove the phrase. I believe that the proposed wording of Amendment No. 23 would be understood by the members of a licensing committee, not forgetting that a licensing committee is not composed of magistrates. Its members have no legal exposure, if I can put it that way.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also said that the Government were about to introduce an anti-social behaviour Bill which would contain powerful measures to prevent anti-social behaviour. However, we do not seek to remedy anti-social behaviour but rather normal social conduct that takes place at abnormal times. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the Bill as drafted would improve integration in the handling of licensing matters. However, it will do that only if Amendment No. 23 is accepted.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 22 and inform the House that I shall not move Amendment No. 24 which stands in my name.
	We now have the benefit of the draft guidance which includes a section on cumulative impacts that is very welcome. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for producing the guidance, albeit a little late. The guidance clearly states that local authorities may take the cumulative effects of a build-up of late night premises in an area into account when looking at individual licensing applications. However, the guidance is only a draft and subject to change. Furthermore, as the Government have not addressed cumulative impact on the face of the Bill, I believe that Amendment No. 22 is necessary to strengthen and support the Bill. As I say, the guidance is welcome, but it must be seen for what it is—guidance.
	In Committee I said that, as this further objective was not clearly spelt out, it would be difficult for people within communities to have very much confidence in what was proposed by the Government as they set about liberalising the licensing laws. Since we discussed the matter in Committee, I have had limited consultation with representatives of local government in the North West of England, the South, various parts of London, the Midlands and with the LGA itself. There was one common response; namely, that if an objective of the liberalisation measure was to protect amenity and people living in communities, why should the Government resist putting that on the face of the Bill? People all over the country ask what is the problem with that.
	I do not propose to set out in detail the various concerns that people have regarding the Bill as that was dealt with in a previous long and detailed debate, as other speakers said. The reasons for protecting the amenity of an area have been well rehearsed. When the Chamber discussed the matter previously, I asked my noble friend the Minister whether she would sympathetically consider the proposed amendments. It is clear to me—and, I am sure, to the House—that she has considered what was said. I am grateful to her for moving towards the position whereby people, local authorities and all concerned have to take into account the protection of amenity when dealing with licensing applications. This evening I ask her to take one further small step for communities who are concerned at what is being suggested and agree to place the proposed additional objective on the face of the Bill.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that we should express our gratitude to the Minister for the better guidance which has now been offered, and particularly for the references in it to cumulative impact. However, I am sorry to say that the effect is spoilt entirely by a particular paragraph. Having said that local authorities are entitled to consider cumulative impact and that that might lead a licensing authority to consider whether the grant of any further premises licence or club premises certificate would undermine one of the licensing objectives, the measure states that the Bill allows for that but with the proviso that cumulative impact has to be addressed in the context of the individual merits of any application. That means that the licensing authority could not say to the applicant, "We think you're splendid people. Your management of other clubs is absolutely impeccable, but we're going to refuse this application on the grounds that there are already enough such premises in our particular district". That is a serious defect in the guidance.
	I also wanted to renew my request to Ministers to say something about the DEFRA inquiry. I asked earlier and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who was answering on that amendment, ignored my request. It is extremely relevant to the amendment. The note about the research being conducted stated that:
	"The objective is to enable DEFRA to anticipate any likely difficulties in the control of noise by local authorities and the licensed trade that may arise from the new legislation".
	If that is not relevant to the question of amenity, I cannot imagine what is.
	I was a little concerned when I had a letter from the Minister only today in which she said that the DEFRA report on issues relating to the night-time economy is not produced with a view to dealing with,
	"the impact of this Bill, but to produce a best practice guide for industry in relation to noise".
	Which is right? Is it the note on the research issued by the company itself, or the letter from the Minister? There is a conflict between the two that I am unable to resolve. Will the Minister help me?
	Will the research see the light of day before the Bill has left Parliament altogether? I asked another Minister whether we could see it on Report, which is obviously not possible now. Will another place be able to see it? Will the DEFRA research be produced some time in the summer, when it will be far too late for it to have any effect on our proceedings? It seems as though we have not got joined-up government. Both the DEFRA report on noise and the ODPM consultation on the A3 user class are highly relevant to the Bill. We have complained in the past that we did not have the guidance, and we now have that. Let us have the other two pieces of key information necessary in order that the House can evaluate the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. My first observation will be in support of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I can recall the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the subject of the DEFRA report. I can recall that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that its purpose was to underpin the guidance. I can recall asking him whether, as the guidance was promised by Report, that meant that the DEFRA report would be available to us by that time as well. He said—in this sense, I acknowledge the amulet that he provided for himself—that he was not making any commitments that had not been made by Ministers on the Bill in relation to the subject. On the other hand, from the words he used it seemed as though the report would come out at the same time as the guidance. I shall not dwell on that any further.
	I can recall supporting the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, on the previous occasion. I appreciate that I am obsessive about the West End and the stress area of Soho and Covent Garden, but I again remind the Minister in the context of the amendment that not only is the West End a great place for drinking and entertainment in licensed premises, it is the centre of theatreland for the country, let alone for London. There is no question but that people are put off coming to the theatre in the West End by what they have to step over or round if they do so. I cite that too in support of the amendments tabled by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I genuinely want to be helpful in replying to this short debate, so I will speak at some length. I will repeat some of what was said in Committee, but it bears repeating.
	Each of the amendments has a slightly different effect. The intention that lies behind them is for licensing authorities to be able to take into account the effect of a number of licensed premises on the amenity of a particular area.
	I shall deal with the amendments' specific effects for a moment. Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 both seek to add a fifth licensing objective, which is the protection of the amenity of the area in the case of Amendment No. 22, and the protection of residential amenity in the case of Amendment No. 24. My noble friend Lord Clarke has kindly said that he will not press Amendment No. 24 and wishes to support Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 23 seeks to remove the prevention of public nuisance as a licensing objective and replace it with a balancing exercise, to be performed by the licensing authority, between the amenity of the area on the one hand and the leisure benefits to be derived from the premises on the other.
	In our view, it is not the accumulation of licensed premises in and of itself that causes the concern that has led to the amendments, but the consequences that can sometimes flow in practice from that accumulation. The licensing objectives address the ways in which experience has shown that problems can arise from the co-existence in one area of a number of licensed premises. Of particular relevance in the matter are the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The choice of licensing objectives derives from experience in current licensing decision-making. They represent the reference against which the licensing authority will balance competing specific interests to reach a decision in relation to an application that is in the overall public interest.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address both crime and disorder and public nuisance arising from the carrying on of licensable activities. We have consulted widely with interested parties including, most recently, the Local Government Association and the London boroughs of Westminster and Camden to determine whether the powers in the Bill are sufficient for those purposes. In Committee, I indicated that if appropriate we intended to table an amendment on Report to ensure that any shortcomings were addressed.
	As a result of the consultations that we have undertaken, our policy has developed. We have tabled amendments to Clauses 7 and 13, and I will return to those later. Further, in the draft guidance that we have made available to the House, we have incorporated clear statements on the way in which a licensing authority's policy may be developed where the cumulative effect of licensed premises in an area impacts on the objectives. Again, I will return to that when we reach the appropriate point.
	First, let me say a little about how the Bill already allows licensing authorities to take into account the cumulative effect of licensing on the amenity of an area. As I stated earlier, the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder, are directed at the problems that can arise in practice from the accumulation of licensed premises in an area. Taking public nuisance as an example, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, drew our attention in Committee to what case law had to say on the matter, namely that,
	"any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects".
	I have not read all the legal textbooks that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has read on the subject. However, I understand that the expression "public nuisance" has been chosen in the Bill as it is well known, flexible and capable of application in a huge range of circumstances. There is developed case law on the matter, and case law will continue to develop in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
	Perhaps it has occurred to the noble Lord that one reason why few cases deal with noise nuisance from clubs and pubs is that licensing controls are, on the whole, effective. The current law allows the licensing authorities to impose conditions relating to disturbance and noise nuisance; they do so and they enforce them. There is no reason necessarily to go to the courts because licences can also be revoked, and they sometimes are. Under the Bill, a review could lead to exactly the same result.
	It would not be desirable to set in stone in the Bill what will constitute a public nuisance, partly because it is not possible to cover every eventuality, and partly because what constitutes a public nuisance will vary from place to place and neighbourhood to neighbourhood. The licensing authority, informed by the experts, needs to be in a position to determine what constitutes public nuisance in each individual case. In certain circumstances it may well be that some lower-level nuisance—such as the slamming of car doors by patrons leaving the premises late at night—has to be taken into account. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that public nuisance is not just about acid-house parties or raves, as was argued in Committee and as he repeated tonight, although it might include those types of nuisance. However, it includes many others as well.
	The Bill allows for that necessary flexible approach. As was stated in the guidance that we have made available to the House,
	"the 2003 Act requires licensing authorities and responsible authorities to make objective judgements about what constitutes nuisance and what is needed, in terms of conditions attached to premises licences and club premises certificates to prevent it. These will not be easy judgements"—
	my noble friend Lord McIntosh made this point earlier—
	"as one man's enjoyable music is another man's irritating noise. It is therefore important that in applying the relevant objective tests, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on impacts of the licensable activities at the relevant premises on people living, working and sleeping in the vicinity that are unreasonable".
	I hope that noble Lords will recognise that that is a considerable improvement on, and development of, the original framework guidance, and a helpful clarification of the Explanatory Notes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked about the DEFRA research. I believe that the letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct. That research is not about the impact of the Bill; it is about the adequacy of existing noise legislation. It involves general research that examines the impact of noise from pubs and clubs. I hope that that clarifies the point.
	Similarly, the ODPM's considerations on the A3 class in the planning context have taken into account issues involving the Bill. We have a joined-up approach with both departments that are considering these questions.
	I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the licensing authorities will have the power to decline a new licence of a particular type when a cumulative effect relating to that type of premises is shown to exist. It does not allow the licensing authorities to reject applications out of hand without proper consideration. I am sure that that is what noble Lords want.
	I firmly believe that our approach will give licensing authorities the ability to address the concerns that lie behind the amendments while retaining the concept of balance expressed in Amendment No. 23. There will be no need for residents to suffer "night after night", as my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead suggested in Committee; they will be able to ask for a review of the licence relating to the offending premises. Nor will the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, have to resort to appearing at his local in his pyjamas to get himself heard—where premises are giving rise to the sorts of discomfort that are defined in the licensing statement, he will be able to call for a review. I am sure that he would do so pretty quickly if he were unhappy about a particular premises. The powers that a licensing authority has following a review are considerable.
	What the Bill is not designed to address, however, is the behaviour of patrons after they have left the vicinity of the premises. I repeat what I said in Committee: it would be neither practical nor reasonable to expect the Bill to do so. It is pretty easy to see how a licensee might encourage sensible, decent and respectful behaviour as individuals are leaving his or her premises, even when they are getting into their cars and driving away. However, that influence becomes quickly attenuated. It is at that point that the onus for good conduct should fall squarely on the individual, and it is on the individual that enforcement efforts should be focused.
	The licensee can and should demand good behaviour from customers while they are on or in the vicinity of the premises. He or she can encourage and request his or her customers to behave when they are beyond the scope of such demands—when they are on the way home or going to another venue. However, he or she cannot exert absolute control over individuals when they have left the vicinity of the premises and are, for example, several hundred yards away. That is why the Government are equipping the police with additional tools to control anti-social behaviour.
	I should refer in this regard also to the amendments that we have tabled on the issue of the cumulative effect. The amendments add the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities identified in Clause 13 which would be required to be notified of, and have the opportunity to make representations on, all licence applications. That will provide an additional voice in the area of public nuisance, particularly that arising from any cumulative effect that might exist. The amendments also require the licensing committee under Clause 7—we shall come to this later, but it is appropriate to mention it in this context—to consult other committees of the local authority when making decisions in respect of matters that concern not only the licensing functions but other functions of the authority. That will provide further opportunities for consideration of the cumulative effect of a licensing decision. That is, of course, underpinned by the statements made in the guidance, which now makes it clear that where a licensing authority can demonstrate that a cumulative effect exists in its area which impacts on its duty to carry out its licensing functions, the licensing authority can frame its licensing statement accordingly.
	In summary—I am sorry to have taken some time, but I thought that doing so would be helpful—I understand the concerns that lie behind the amendments. However, I believe that they are unnecessary because the Bill already allows licensing authorities to deal with the practical problems that can flow from a growth in the number of licensed premises in an area. In the light of what I have said about the existing powers in the Bill and the steps we have taken to make clear its adaptability to local circumstances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full response. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that she genuinely wants to be helpful in this regard and in relation to a number of issues that we have confronted on Report. I am also genuinely grateful to her for ensuring that we had sight of the guidance in good time before Report. That was helpful to all of us. The guidance, however, is only guidance and, with regard to the licensing objectives and the question of amenity, we believe that it is insufficient.
	We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, for his support for Amendment No. 22 and his appreciation of our view, which we hold very strongly, that it is important that we have an objective that addresses the protection of those living in the area surrounding a premises. As I said earlier, Amendment No. 23 is even better because it holds out a proper balance—a fair balance—between those who want to enjoy the premises and what those premises provide, and those who wish to have, as I said in Committee, the right to live as a community in peace.
	We are asking to have in the Bill a licensing objective that gives clarity to local authorities when they make those very important decisions about their local communities. We do not feel that the Government have met that need. We believe that they support all that we have been trying to do. I am afraid that the Government have not gone far enough despite their helpful references, for example, to the cumulative effect in the guidance. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 3, line 11, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	"(c) the prevention of unreasonable diminution of the living and working amenity and environment of interested parties in the vicinity of the premises balancing those matters against the benefits to be derived from the leisure amenity of such premises;"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 99.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that that the Report stage begin again not before 8.41 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I take this opportunity to inform the House that I shall be attending ministerial and other meetings out of London on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday, I shall be attending the enthronement of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. In those circumstances, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the purpose of the draft order is to bring, so far as is practicable, the provisions relating to elections to the National Assembly for Wales into line with those which apply when there is a parliamentary election anywhere in the United Kingdom.
	The statutory authority is Section 11 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which empowers the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to Assembly elections. The order regulates most aspects of the process for electing and returning Assembly Members, as well as establishing mechanisms for questioning an election, and for remedying irregularities.
	The first Assembly elections were conducted under the terms of an order made in 1999. That order drew heavily on the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, which govern parliamentary elections throughout the UK and local government elections in England and Wales. That was absolutely right as we were aiming for consistency of practice. The 1999 order successfully achieved that objective.
	However, since 1999, the Government have taken great strides forward in their commitment to modernise electoral law. Much of that was achieved through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which, among other things, established the Electoral Commission as an independent overseer of UK electoral processes. That Act, together with the Representation of the People Act 2000, made significant changes to the legislation on which the 1999 order was based.
	An amendment order in 2002 implemented the most essential changes which needed to be in place in the event of a by-election. However, it was always recognised that further amendments would be needed.
	Including these further changes in a second amendment order would have caused practical difficulties both for electoral administrators and for the political parties and their candidates, who would have needed to consult at least three separate documents to clarify every detail of the rules and procedures. We therefore decided to consolidate into a wholly new order all the changes which have become necessary since 1999.
	So this order restates the amendments made in 2002. In addition, it introduces new changes covering, in particular: offences in relation to false statements in applications for absent and proxy votes; false statements in nomination papers; restrictions on the publication of exit polls; control of donations to candidates; candidates' expenses; the broadcasting of local items; and, finally, provisions relating to the consequences of conviction for corrupt electoral practice.
	The order is lengthy and detailed—more than 250 pages long. In view of that, I hope that the House will find it helpful if I concentrate my comments on areas where we are bringing forward significant changes. The first is in Article 13, which clarifies the legal implications of making false statements in relation to an application for a postal or proxy vote. Anyone found guilty of such an offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. It may be of assistance to the House if I explain that level 5 is the highest point on the standard scale of penalties for criminal offences. It currently stands at £5,000. That is consistent with the provisions for parliamentary elections in Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000.
	Two further offences appear as "new" in relation to National Assembly elections, although, again, they replicate provisions already applying to parliamentary elections. Article 32 deals with false statements in nomination papers and related documents, while Article 34 extends to Assembly elections the prohibition on the publication of exit polls, as introduced for elections of other kinds through the Representation of the People Act 2000. It will be an offence to publish any such details until after the poll has closed at 10 p.m.
	Article 39, together with Schedule 6, makes new provisions about the control of donations to candidates. Those reflect provisions for other elections implemented in Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983. The rules make absolutely clear that, as well as direct financial support, they also cover sponsorship, donations in kind, and loans on non-commercial terms. Assembly candidates will be subject to the same list of permissible donors as candidates for election to Parliament. The schedule also sets out clear rules for the reporting of donations, thus ensuring that all sums are accounted for.
	I move ahead to Article 66, which introduces new provisions to regulate the broadcasting of local items during the election period. They require the broadcasting authorities to adopt a code of practice with respect to the participation of Assembly candidates in items about the constituency or electoral region in which they are standing. The provisions reflect changes in respect of other elections introduced by Section 144 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	Part IV of the order makes provision for legal proceedings. It is designed to ensure that comparable procedures apply in connection with Assembly elections as apply in connection with elections to Parliament. The one change of significance is in Article 122. It deals with the circumstances in which an individual is convicted of corrupt or illegal practice while acting as a sitting Member of the Assembly. The conviction would require such a person to vacate his or her seat. However, it is right that a short period of grace should be allowed while the Member has an opportunity to appeal against conviction. That is now provided for in the expanded Article 122. However, during any such period of grace, the individual would be suspended from performing the functions of an Assembly Member.
	Schedule 4 deals with the combination of polls when Assembly elections are held on the same day as those for local authorities. These provisions are essentially unchanged from the existing order. However, they have been altered to reflect the future possibility of mayoral elections in Wales.
	This is a complex order. It has to be to ensure comprehensive coverage and to provide us with the necessary reassurance that Assembly Members will be elected through an equitable and transparent process which everyone can trust. In accordance with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the draft was the subject of consultation with the Electoral Commission before it was laid before Parliament. The commission has confirmed that it is content with the version we are now considering.
	In addition, the Government have consulted with the Assembly, in view of the wide ranging obligations that the order places on it. Comments were also invited from representatives of Welsh electoral administrators, and from the four political parties currently represented in the Assembly. The final draft now being considered takes full account of all comments received from those sources. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, as the Minister explained, this is the third order of its kind to come before us. My impression is that this one is bigger and bulkier than any of its predecessors. I take it that this is the order that will govern the Assembly elections in May this year. I hope that some advance publicity will be given to the contents, especially the provisions relating to proxy and postal voting, as knowledge of how to obtain such votes is patchy at present. They could help to improve turn-out, which last time was 46 per cent—pretty low.
	A host of questions arise from the order. I can refer to only some in the limited time available. Article 15(1) refers to the combination of Assembly and local government elections on the same day. That begs the question of why local government elections, which should fall this year, have been postponed to next year. I do not think that we have had a satisfactory explanation—one that does not savour of party political advantage. Can the Minister confirm that in the event of a combined elections day in future, the polling hours will be the same? Article 45 deals with the limitation of election expenses by the number of electors on rolling registers. Can the Minister say what leeway will be allowed for candidates whose expenses were within the limit in the period prior to the election but marginally over the limit due to a fall in numbers on the register at the time of the election? There is some concern too about local authority familiarity with the use of rolling registers.
	Turning to Part 4 of the order and legal proceedings, again a number of questions arise. Article 87 deals with time limits for the presentation of petitions concerning undue elections or returns. Where allegations come to light after the time limit, which may often be the case, how can redress be sought? Incidentally, is there a similar time limit for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament?
	I am tempted to pass Article 99 but it is worth noting that if a court decided that the election of a constituency member were void, nevertheless the validity of regional members election, although related to the constituency election, would not be affected. I suppose that a line has to be drawn somewhere.
	Article 115(2) states that where corruption has occurred to further the number of votes received by a political party at regional level, such corruption shall be treated as having had the purpose of helping each candidate on that party's list. So presumably they will all be punished in the same manner whether they were party to the corruption or not, or even if they reported it?
	Article 122(4) states that any person elected to the Assembly who is then convicted of electoral malpractice must vacate the seat. Even if that person appeals successfully against his conviction, the article implies that he will not be able to reclaim the seat that was rightly his. That can hardly be just.
	Similarly, Article 129 appears to be very sweeping in imposing a liability to punishment on all members of an association that commits an offence under the order, whether they were aware of the offence or not and possibly having reported it to the relevant authorities. It is surely unjust that a law-abiding member of an association who, unknown to him, breaks the law should be held responsible.
	Schedule 5, paragraph 17, allows for the publication of regional party lists. What intrigues many is what the position would be if, after the close of nominations, a candidate on the regional list of a registered political party defected to another party. Would that candidate be excluded from the list or would that candidate still be elected if his original party was allocated a sufficient number of seats? I admit that the question seems far fetched until the case arises. I am not at all sure that I have understood paragraphs 52 and 58 of Schedule 5 and their relationship to each other.
	Paragraph 52 allows for a recount of regional votes cast at constituency level but a close run between parties at that level will hardly matter until the votes are added up at regional level. Paragraph 58 allows the agent present at the calculation of the regional totals to request, prior to the allocation of seats,
	"the regional returning officer to provisionally ascertain those results again".
	Does that mean that agents have the right to ask for a recount of the regional votes in each constituency or simply a recalculation of the sum of constituency totals received at regional level? It is not clear. The difference between the competing parties will probably be most critical and the demand for a recount will probably be the keenest when the last seat is allocated.
	There are a number of other points that I hope the noble Lord will examine, such as the referencing in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to paragraphs (4) and (6) of Article 31 that do not exist in my copy. There is also a reference in Article 127 to a time limit for commencement of legal action in Scotland and Northern Ireland which seems to be an oddity in an order relating to Wales. Otherwise, we shall not oppose the order.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said, it may be bigger and bulkier, but at least it brings into line the electoral law in Wales with the reforms in the law that have passed through Parliament in the years since 1999.
	One matter that concerns everyone with the interests of Wales at heart is low turn-out at elections. A turn-out of 46 per cent is not satisfactory. I was a member of the Sutherland commission on proportional representation in local government elections. We spent much time examining and taking evidence on the ways in which we could encourage more voting. The experiments that have been tried in local government elections in England do not appear in this regulation at all, so I assume the Government feel that no clear option emerged from the experiments a year or two ago. That is a shame because I think that this is an opportunity to employ more imaginative ways of encouraging people to vote.
	The Sutherland commission looked, for example, at supermarket voting. One problem is that people from a number of constituencies visit supermarkets so it would be rather difficult to organise ballot papers. I believe that the Government should pursue the matter through the Internet. Young people—regrettably, those least likely to vote—use the Internet and e-mail as their normal means of communication. I think that that is a step toward losing the use of their legs through a process of natural selection. However, it is necessary to consider new methods.
	I hope that the National Assembly's success—which has been considerable over the years, although insufficiently publicised, due to the way in which the media approach its deliberations—will have got the message through to people that their daily lives are affected by the representatives who are elected to the Assembly. I sincerely hope that proper publicity will be given to the order, so that more people will turn up at the ballot box or use proxy or absent voting, as circumstances may permit. We welcome the order.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, perhaps may I ask my noble friend to clarify a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts: that of the postponement of the local elections from 2003 to 2004. That is a devolved matter and is exclusively for the Welsh Assembly, not for Westminster.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I hesitate to encroach into what is purely a Welsh matter, but my point relates to that made by the noble Baroness. With an Assembly with a fixed term, if it should be necessary to vary the date of polling day, could that be achieved by order or would a Bill—primary legislation—be necessary?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this short debate about a long order. It represents a vital part of the democratic process in Wales. It is important not only that the Assembly elections are conducted fairly but that they are seen to be fair. It is essential that voters know that the results will reflect as closely as possible the wishes of the electorate.
	Several interesting points have been made that I shall attempt to answer. If I fail to answer any of them, noble Lords who have asked them will receive a letter from me within the next few days.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, first asked about publicising the availability of postal and proxy voting. That is closely connected with an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about making voting more accessible and attractive. I personally entirely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the Internet, especially in encouraging young people to vote. The Government share the wish to encourage a greater take-up of such voting rights. I understand that during the coming weeks the Electoral Commission will take steps to raise public awareness of them in advance of the Assembly elections.
	Although there are still conditions to be met for proxy voting, everyone is now entitled to request a postal vote. I know that several electoral registration officers in Wales have already written to electors in their areas inviting them to do so. Earlier this month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales urged other local authorities to follow that lead. The benefit of such an approach is well illustrated by the experience of two south Wales councils that between them cover five Assembly constituencies. As a result of a recent mail shot, the number of people registering for postal voting in those areas has doubled.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, then asked about the combination of polls. The decision to defer the ordinary council elections from 2003 to 2004 was, as correctly identified by my noble friend Lady Gale, a matter for the Assembly. However, it is quite possible that local elections will coincide with the Assembly elections, and I can confirm that where and when that happens, the polling hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. will apply to both.
	As for election expenses, Article 45 makes it clear that the limit will be based on the number of electors on the register, as it has effect on the day of publication of the notice of election—several weeks before the election itself. That is also the point from which expenditure or the use of other assets becomes subject to limitation. Any variation in elector numbers during a short period is likely to be small, so it should be possible for candidates to plan and manage their expenditure in order to comply with the limit.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, also raised questions about the provisions for legal proceedings in Part 5 of the order. I recognise that the requirement may give rise to difficulties in a small number of cases. However, it is in the interests of justice that we have clear and specific rules, so that everyone knows where they stand.
	The provisions in the order are consistent with those applying to parliamentary elections. The Government believe that we have struck the right balance—that has not been questioned by any of the groups that had an opportunity to read early drafts of the order. But if particular problems emerge that lead to the electoral commission recommending changes, I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government will consider them carefully.
	I now turn to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about the possible defection by a party list candidate. I confirm that, up to the time of the election and the initial return of Members, the position of the party list candidate is no different from that of constituency candidates—or, indeed, of candidates for election to Parliament. In the unlikely event of defection in the few weeks between nomination and election, the list candidate's right to be returned would be unaffected.
	The position is different when selecting top-up candidates to fill vacancies that arise later. In those circumstances, the returning officer is required to contact the relevant party to establish whether the candidate should be treated as being included on its list.
	I now turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on paragraphs 52 and 55 of Schedule 5, which relate to the count of votes in the regional election. As the noble Lord said, paragraph 52 allows a recount of regional list votes at constituency level, prior to the results being notified to the regional returning officer. Under paragraph 58, the provisional ascertainment of results can be subject to recalculation, but that does not envisage a further recount of individual votes. It was decided in 1999 that any difference would have a minimal impact on the allocation of regional seats. The Government see no present need for change. However, the experience of the 2003 elections will be subject to review by the Electoral Commission, and we shall be happy to examine the matter again, if the commission's findings suggest that that is necessary.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for the points of detail that he raised. If I have missed any out, I will, as I said, write to him tomorrow. I assure the House that we shall examine them closely and consider whether they call for further action.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his interesting points about making the election process more attractive. As I said, I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, I say that the Government of Wales Act 1998 gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State a power to change the date of the Assembly election. The Government have no current plans to do so.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) Order 2003

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) Order 2003, a copy of which was laid before the House on 30th January, be approved. The order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
	The order, subject to the approval of the House and of another place, will bring into effect from 1st April, 2003, revised codes of practice for the exercise of police powers in relation to the following: searches of premises and the seizure of property found on persons or premises—Code B; the detention, treatment and questioning of persons—Code C; the identification of persons—Code D; and tape recording interviews with suspects—Code E. The order has been made under Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call "PACE" from now on. It cannot have effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House.
	Under Section 66 of PACE, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has a duty to issue codes of practice to regulate the police in the exercise of their powers. There are six codes of practice, Codes A to F. The current versions of Codes B to E came into force on 10th April, 1995. Since then, various legislative changes have affected police powers and procedures and rendered the current codes out of date.
	PACE and the codes of practice are vital parts of the framework of legislation providing the police with the powers that they need to fight crime. The codes provide directions and guidelines on how PACE and associated legislation is to be applied. They also regulate other aspects of offence investigation such as interviewing, cautioning and identification procedures. The longer the codes remain out of date and do not reflect changed legislation or respond to failings in case law, the more confusion they may cause. The operational imperative for police and prosecutors is to have up-to-date codes of practice as soon as possible.
	In accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of PACE, the draft codes of practice have been through a period of public consultation. That period ran from June to August last year. The changes proposed in the draft codes represented a partial review, primarily to take account of changes specifically required by new or changed legislation passed since the codes were last updated in 1995. The consultation was part of an overall review of PACE and the codes of practice, conducted jointly by the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in May, 2002.
	The PACE review report was published in November 2002. The report made recommendations in relation to longer-term changes to the codes, and those recommendations have been included in the Criminal Justice Bill that the House will consider in due course. In the mean time, the report endorsed the strategy of pressing ahead with the present limited review of the codes in order to give to the police the up-to-date codes that they seek.
	There were approximately 80 responses to the consultation exercise on the revised codes, many of them raising a range of issues. In our consideration of the comments received, the focus has been on comments relating to legislative changes. We have also taken on board suggestions for practical improvements or for revisions to the drafting in the interests of clarity. In general, we resisted requests for more detail or for additional guidance in the codes. The PACE review report identified a need for greater clarity in the codes, as part of the longer-term revision to which I referred. Much of the detailed guidance in the current codes will be moved into separate national standards. In the mean time, within the current codes framework, we have made changes to make the codes easier to read and more user friendly.
	I hope that the proposed revisions are not contentious. Many changes will enable implementation of important legislative provisions in areas such as seizure powers and rank authorities for PACE decisions. Other changes allow for the introduction of a broader range of healthcare professionals in the custody suite. The new codes also enable more effective use of civilian support staff, including designated persons as provided for in the Police Reform Act 2002. Particular attention has been paid to the drafting of the new codes to ensure that they do not require any specified procedures or tasks to be carried out by a police officer or a designated person when there is no such legislative requirement. That will enable chief officers to make maximum use of suitably trained civilian staff in areas such as interviewing and identification procedures.
	Taken together, these changes will speed up decision-making processes and free up senior officers' time for other duties, enable the police to work more flexibly and make better use of resources, and free up police officer time to concentrate on front-line duties.
	The modernisation of the codes at this time will bring police practice into line with current legislation, enable more effective and efficient use of police time and provide the police with the up-to-date codes that they are seeking. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the four codes made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I appreciate his points about the need to keep them up to date. I am a banker, not a lawyer. Therefore, I come to the issue, first, unprejudiced but perhaps, secondly, ignorant.
	It seems that the key principle behind the codes is whether they strike a fair balance. On the one hand, society is entitled to have codes which give the police adequate powers to ensure that those suspected of criminal offences, especially serious offences such as terrorism, are unable to skip away on technicalities. But on the other hand, society will want to see that the vulnerable are protected. Young people and foreigners whose command of English may be imperfect, and UK citizens who may be unsophisticated and lack the mental capacity to understand the full impact of what is being implied, can find the pressure imposed on them unfair and unreasonable.
	There have been well-documented cases in the past where the police, reacting quite understandably to public pressure, have swept up people with Irish accents. No doubt, there is a similar danger today for people that are "Arab-looking".
	There is an over-worked phrase, "the devil is in the detail". Perhaps in these codes, it is a fair issue to raise. I begin with a practical point: reading through the codes to establish whether the balance is being altered at all, it would be extraordinarily helpful to have the proposed changes highlighted by underlining, sidelining or by the use of a different case of text. There are 13 pages in Code B, 47 pages in Code C, 34 pages in Code D and eight pages in Code E. A total of 92 pages without any marking of the changes. It makes it hard for a layman to react with any reasoned, balanced judgment. I understand that the highlighting might make it harder for the Minister or his civil servants, but it would be most helpful to the House in its revising role.
	In that connection, the Minister should be aware that all the copies of Code D that I have laid my hands upon do not contain pages 4 or 7. Therefore, Clauses 2.17, 2.19, and 3.4 to 3.12 inclusive remain a complete mystery. The omission should be rectified as soon as possible.
	As I understand it, the codes give powers envisaged by Parliament when it passed the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that no other extension of powers under the provisions of other legislation is envisaged in the regulations.
	I now turn to a couple of detailed points on the codes themselves. In Code B, Clause 2.11(a) and in Code C, Clause 1.13(a), the issue of "designated person" is raised. The Minister referred to this in his opening remarks, of which I took careful note. He seemed to envisage only civilian employees being designated persons. Would they include, for example, such people as special constables? Or are there any other types of people who could be included in that definition?
	In Code B, Clause 6.1 states:
	"Searches made under warrant must be made within one calendar month of the date of the warrant's issue".
	Is the date of issue the date on which it is signed? As I recall, during proceedings on the Animal Health Bill, it became clear that the practice had grown up of magistrates signing but not dating warrants—which seems to me to be a poor practice anyway. But what is the position under this provision of the code? It would seem wrong to have a signed but undated warrant hanging like an unseen Sword of Damocles over a suspect's head.
	Finally on Code B in Clause 6.14, which relates to the carrying out of searches, there is a requirement for the officers to act with discretion and with the least possible disruption. But those good intentions are slightly undermined by the final paragraph in Clause 6.15 where the officer in charge of the search is able to carry out a search having reasonable grounds for believing that such a search is necessary. Presumably, such searches could be conducted into firms or companies with shared premises—front doors or facilities—with other innocent companies or individuals employed by a company. How will the issue of discretion and the least possible disruption apply in these cases? How will those innocent parties, other firms or individuals who have been affected, apply for compensation if their position or business is damaged?
	I turn to Code C at Clauses 6.9 and 6.10 and to Explanatory Note 6D. This concerns the role of the solicitor and his possible removal from the interview on the grounds of obstruction. Explanatory Note 6D states that the solicitor may,
	"advise their client not to reply to particular questions".
	What is meant by "particular"? Could a solicitor advise his client, for instance, to answer no questions? The situation could be envisaged of a person being detained at an entry port. The duty solicitor is summoned. The case against his client is not clear or not yet fully made. Can he, in such circumstances, advise his client to decline to answer any questions or will he be removed from the interviewing process on the ground that he is obstructing the police in their duties?
	Clause 9.12 in Code C refers to medical conditions, as mentioned by the Minister. A condition not covered is asthma, an increasingly prevalent illness for which an inhaler is needed. Would Clause 9.12 permit an individual access to an inhaler even though for many sufferers asthma could not rank eligibly alongside, for instance, a heart condition, epilepsy or diabetes in seriousness?
	Finally on the codes, in Clause 4.3 of Code E reference is made to recording interviews using clean tapes. Does that mean new tapes? If so, why not say so? In my commercial experience, re-used tapes can occasionally continue to carry material. The clause states that the officer must,
	"load the recorder with clean tapes and set it to record".
	Are the "clean" tapes new tapes? If they are reasonable tapes, from time to time material will have inadvertently been left on which might damage the integrity of the case for the police or the defence of the suspect.
	Clause 4.8 of Code E and Explanatory Note 4D deals with the continuing of tape recorded interviews after objections by the suspect. In such circumstances, the suspect will presumably refuse to answer questions being put to him. He may be doing so on legal advice. If so, should not that fact be required to be recorded?
	I want to make one or two general points in closing. I shall deal first with the meshing together of different codes. The major concern in the DTI regulations, with which I am more familiar, has been the fact that definitions and practices have varied slightly from one regulation to another. This is administratively inconvenient, complex and cumbersome to administer. It can also lead to a sense of grievance among people who feel that they should have qualified under one regulation but qualified under another.
	I understand that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 contains provisions for carrying out searches and procedures for identifying suspects along the lines of the codes we are considering today. I understand that these are still at the consultation stage, which will not be completed until the end of March. I know that the Minister referred to the Criminal Justice Bill and the whole issue being revised yet again, but it is important that the Minister gives an assurance that these codes will mesh up and that we will not have either overlapping or underlapping definitions.
	As I read the codes, there has been a general reduction in the rank of those required to carry out searches and so on from superintendent to inspector. Can the Minister confirm that and explain the thinking behind it?
	A number of important issues arise within the codes in regard to relevant relationships—about which a number of concerns have been raised with me—including relationships between a suspect and parents, family, partner and fiancé. Will a search warrant for a premises, which could be someone's home or place of employment, include the seizure of computers not owned by and/or not used by the suspect; personal papers not belonging to the suspect; and work or business papers technically the property of the employer of the suspect? I do not expect the police would seek to impound material from a Member of your Lordships' House who has a wayward son or daughter, but one too often hears of single parents, female fiancées or partners being treated as though they and their possessions are covered by a warrant issued in respect of their male partners.
	The provisions of the order seem to bring DNA testing a stage further into our law. It is clearly an important weapon in the fight against crime but, rather than this inch-by-inch approach, it would be helpful to know the Government's strategy and policy objectives on this subject. Is it their long-term intention, for example, to ask all those seeking to live in this country to provide a DNA sample, as I believe happens in America; or, perhaps a more comprehensive and draconian measure, to take a DNA sample from every child at birth?
	This is an important order. We need to ensure that the police have the right support and the right powers, particularly in these turbulent times, but we need to maintain a balance in order to preserve our civil liberties. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to these points on the order, which, in principle, has our support.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. As the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out, it covers the revised codes of practice relating to certain aspects of the PACE Act 1984.
	The pattern of crime and criminality is continuously changing and the way in which police operations are carried out requires a regular revision of the codes. The last time the codes were revised was about eight years ago. As one who has not been a banker or a businessman but who has worked as a member of the Police Complaints Authority, I believe that it is right and proper that the codes should be revised to bring them into line with the present situation.
	We welcome these revised codes. I agree with the Minister that they are not contentious. They strike the right balance between the need for responsible behaviour and the removal of the unnecessary paperwork that quite often burdens our police forces.
	I have two or three questions for the Minister. In terms of detention, recording and drug testing, how does the code relate to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill currently passing through the House of Commons? Are there to be parallel codes for other law enforcement agencies with similar powers? Given that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which is going through your Lordships' House at present, will soon be enacted, revised codes will be necessary, particularly bearing in mind that police forces from Europe may carry out similar functions to those specified in the codes. Is there any provision to incorporate foreign police forces under this code or will there be a separate code of practice for them?
	Overall, we see nothing objectionable in the order, and we welcome it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the amended codes. I will supply the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, with the missing pages, and I apologise that they were not available.
	The first point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was on paragraph 2.11 of Code B. A designated person is defined as a person other than a police officer designated under Part 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002, such person having the specified powers and duties of a police officer conferred or imposed on them. The same definition is used in paragraph 1.13.
	The noble Lord referred to the notes on Section 6 of Code C. It could be proper for a solicitor to advise a client not to answer any question, depending on individual circumstances. For example, if the police had made inadequate pre-interview disclosure, such advice might be proper. It would depend on the circumstances.
	The noble Lord asked about inhalers in relation to asthma under Code C. Paragraph 9.12 relates to more serious conditions such as heart conditions, diabetes, epilepsy or a condition of comparable potential seriousness. Even though paragraph 9.5 may not apply, the advice of the appropriate healthcare professional must be obtained. It will be a question of fact in every case as to whether the condition is of comparable seriousness to those identified in paragraph 9.12. It would be wrong of me to say whether that would or would not be so in a particular case.
	The noble Lord referred to whether a tape recorder should be kept on, which I think was a reference to when a complaint is made. Under paragraph 4 of Code E, if the custody officer is called to deal with a complaint, the tape recorder should, if possible, be left on until the custody officer has entered the room and spoken to the person being interviewed. Continuation or termination of the interview should be at the interviewer's discretion, pending action by an inspector under Code C, paragraph 9.2. Paragraph 4 of Code E makes it clear that the tape recorder should, if possible, be left on.
	The noble Lord spoke about shared premises. Under Code B, the officer conducting the search will need to satisfy himself that he has grounds for a search and lawful authority to search. If he is wrong and a company in shared premises suffers damages, it could sue for damages for trespass in the normal way, but that is a matter of fact in every case.
	On Code E, the noble Lord raised the question of clear tapes. It is understood that that must mean new tapes, for the reason the noble Lord gave. He asked whether it was our intention to take DNA samples from everybody. No, it is not, but it is our intention to bring forward further changes for extending DNA and fingerprinting for those arrested and held in police detention. We will do that in the Criminal Justice Bill which is currently in another place.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about drug testing, rightly pointing out that the codes will need revision when the Criminal Justice Bill's provisions on drug testing are enacted. That is another matter to bring forward at the appropriate time.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, also asked about the reduction in rank required for authorities in relation to certain issues, from superintendent down to inspector. We believe that that is a sensible and practical measure. Inspectors are extremely responsible people and we think that that is an appropriate level at which those authorisations should be given.
	I think that I have answered every question that has been raised. If I have not done so, I shall certainly write to those noble Lords concerned.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.36 to 8.41 p.m.]

Licensing Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) the protection of human rights"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the version of the Bill that we study on Report does not carry the same health statement that the Bill carried at Second Reading and in Committee, whereby the Minister says that it is in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not intend to cast any disagreeable aspersion on the Minister in moving the amendment.
	The Minister will remember that the issue of human rights arose late in our proceedings in Committee. There was an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and myself at a late stage on Clause 180, so I do not apologise for introducing this simple amendment at this stage, on the licensing objectives in Clause 4.
	Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a manner incompatible with the convention, unless compelled to do so by a primary Act of Parliament. The Government have signalled their intention to produce an Act that is consistent with the convention, but the manner through which the intention is given effect in the Bill is in some respects unsatisfactory, because the licensing objectives do not include all the convention rights.
	The objectives do not require licensing authorities to protect the following convention rights: first, the protection of property rights of licensees and others whose property may be affected by the grant of licences, in Article 1, Protocol 1, and, secondly, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10. That has already been discussed in correspondence with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in a letter from a residents' association in Soho dated 28th January. That organisation believes that this amendment is the simplest way in which to ensure that licensing authorities have duties to consider all the convention issues, and other human rights issues, that arise, without having to specify each of them in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Lord identified, the Bill must be interpreted in a manner compatible with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. I appreciate that, in moving the amendment, he is not casting any aspersion on the ministerial position of having signed the Bill as consistent with the broad objectives of human rights.
	The Government contend that, no matter how noble the aim or aspiration, the licensing objectives must focus on the objectives to which a direct contribution can be made through the licensing regime itself. In particular, conditions may be attached to premises licences, which are necessary to promote the licensing objectives. It must be remembered, however, that conditions attached to licenses or club premises certificates will, if breached, give rise to the potential for criminal sanction. Such conditions, which relate directly back to the objectives listed in the Bill, must be capable of being couched in precise terms so that the licence holder, the enforcement agencies and the courts themselves will know when criminal behaviour has occurred.
	Therefore, we are not focusing in the Bill's objectives on aspirational themes. We are focusing on practical, transparent restrictions that are necessary for the promotion of the Bill's licensing objectives. For example, to assure public safety, a strict limit of, say, 350 persons could be imposed as a venue's capacity. If 351 persons were present on the premises, everyone would be clear that something had gone wrong which could lead to a prosecution because an offence had occurred. Similarly, if closed circuit television is needed to prevent crime, it can be made a condition of the licence that CCTV is present, switched on and functioning.
	The protection of human rights gives rise to an array of balancing acts, between rights that recognise obligations and rights between individuals. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will recognise the force of that argument. The right of performers, for example, to freedom of expression on the premises needs to be balanced with the right of a nearby local resident to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and his home. Those are not easy judgments, as our courts know only too well, and it really would be enormously difficult for a licensing authority to frame conditions in pursuit of such an aspiration, let alone to determine whether they were necessary in any particular set of circumstances.
	Of course I do not disagree that the protection of human rights should be at the forefront of the minds of everyone involved in the licensing world. It is just not appropriate to include it in the objectives of Clause 4—which are already directed at ensuring that convention rights are observed, but which are, of course, designed to reflect the appropriate consideration for a licensing system and control that properly balances a range of competing interests.
	I therefore recognise the amendment's objectives—the noble Lord has expressed them cogently and given them the highest consideration—and I know their source. However, this is a Licensing Bill that focuses on the decisions and judgments that licensing authorities must make. The Minister's signature on the Bill attests to the fact that it meets the test of observing the broad framework of human rights. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the care and attention that he gave to the amendment and for the thoughtfulness of his response to it. He did not suggest that it was in any sense a paving amendment to other amendments which I may move later, but I think that, as its progenitor, I can so claim. As the opening ball of a quite prolonged series of amendments on human rights, it is of a rather categoric nature, and rather more full than the opening ball of many of the matches currently taking place in the southern hemisphere. I understand what he said. We will return to the subordinate elements of this issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 3, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is the opening amendment of a group, the rest of which will be moved and spoken to by other noble Lords. Amendment No. 26 is not a bad amendment with which to open this particular discussion.
	In carrying out its licensing functions, a licensing authority will be required to have its own licensing statement in addition to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That is familiar to all Members of your Lordships' House from the Committee stage and, indeed, from the Bill. Amendment No. 26—my Amendment No. 31A, which we shall discuss shortly, is in the same category—is proposed as a means of ensuring that those two requirements complement rather than compete with each other. There is a danger otherwise that licensing authorities and the courts will be unclear as to Parliament's intentions on which should come first in the licensing authority's considerations. The proposal is that a licensing authority should be required to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance when formulating its licensing statement. It will be clear from the amendment that the statement of licensing policy itself should guide the determination of licensing applications.
	Amendments No. 26 and 31A, taken together, reflect the respective roles of central and local government under other comparable regulatory regimes, for example, in planning. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the starting point for the determination of a planning application is the local authority's development plan. In determining the contents of its development plan, the planning authority has regard to regional planning guidance and other policy guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I hope that those words are sufficient to set the scene of the local authority interest. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 30. The amendments are self-explanatory. They seek to substitute regulations for guidance. We on these Benches do not like the proliferation of secondary legislation. Our major objection to the guidance is that it can be changed by the Secretary of State at a moment's notice. The noble Lord opposite shakes his head. I refer to the flexibility that we discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. We believe that noble Lords should have the opportunity to examine the guidance. Unfortunately, it arrived only recently. However, I thank the Minister for providing the guidance which has meant that, unlike at the previous stage, our deliberations today on the Government's intentions are based more on fact than on supposition.
	The Government's Amendment No. 28 goes some way to meet our concerns. I shall listen to the Minister's comments although at Third Reading I may return to the need for regulations. However, Amendment No. 28 is helpful in that it permits the guidance to be scrutinised by Parliament.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 which stand also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke. In Committee I spoke on this subject at some length. I do not wish to repeat myself unnecessarily. The job of your Lordships' House is to scrutinise. With so many crucial details left off the face of the Bill and included instead in the guidance, such scrutiny of what is in effect the practical working of the legislation is nigh on impossible.
	I appreciate that the Government may say that there is flexibility. We accept that the Government are keen to ensure that there is a degree of flexibility—we have sympathy with that—but the advantage of the guidance is that it may be changed by the Secretary of State to meet situations as they develop under the new licensing system. Although we are grateful to the Minister for publishing the draft guidance in good time for us to consider its contents prior to this stage of the Bill, our initial reaction remains somewhat unchanged in relation to the need for regulations.
	We believe that there is no justification for compromising the scrutinising duties of the House simply to make allowance for the fact that no one knows how effectively the new system will work. The situation seems to have taken a turn for the better, however. Although the Government took their time in getting a draft version of the guidance to us, I was pleased that they took our admonishments to heart and tabled Amendment No. 28. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that amendment, and we certainly welcome the obligation that the guidance and any subsequent revision of it be laid before the House and approved by resolution. That is a positive step forward and allays a good deal of concern about the nature of the guidance.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on 13th February we made available a draft of the guidance, placing copies in the Library. I am grateful for the noble Baroness's welcome of the fact that we were able to do that. It is an early draft. It was produced considerably ahead of our original schedule and I make no bones about the fact that some of it will need to be changed when it is formally issued.
	The guidance will evolve for several reasons. The policy will develop as we respond to concerns expressed in our debates. Our consultation on the guidance with a wide range of stakeholders, not least the local authorities, continues and will go on until it is finalised. Our discussions with other government departments and their agencies are also continuing, so some elements of the guidance will probably have to change to reflect developing policies in those departments. Particularly crucial will be the emerging findings of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit in developing the alcohol harm reduction strategy, which will need to be reflected in the drafting of the guidance.
	It may be helpful if I explain a little more about why we believe that guidance is a sensible approach to take. When reviewing licensing law prior to the publication of the White Paper, the Government became conscious of a number of problems with the current law. There was considerable inconsistency in practice and enforcement of both alcohol and public entertainment licensing law. Despite valuable initiatives such as the Justices' Clerks' Society's Good Practice Guide, the problems continued. In the case of local authorities, the inconsistencies could not always be justified by local differences. Those inconsistencies hampered planning by businesses involved in the sector and, where boundaries adjoined, could cause problems for the police, as people move across the boundaries seeking more liberal regimes.
	Successive governments have had to tell each House in a number of debates on the subject that one matter or another was for licensing justices or the local authorities, and that any other change would have to await primary legislation. On one level, that meant that successive governments could evade accountability for many of the matters that we have been debating. Primary legislation was always just a little out of reach.
	We therefore concluded that what was needed was a flexible mechanism, as referred to by the noble Baroness, which would promote best practice, ensure reasonably consistent application of licensing powers across the country and promote fairness, equal treatment and proportionality, but one which would be responsive to local circumstances. Guidance appeared to be the logical way forward.
	Licensing authorities should be required to have regard to the guidance when exercising their powers but, equally, they should be free to depart from it where there are good reasons for doing so or local circumstances so dictate. In addition, the mechanism chosen needed to be flexible and responsive, so that advice on new issues arising could be dispatched to the authorities quickly and effectively without any delay.
	I hope that it will also be accepted that, in drafting the guidance, we have listened carefully to the anxiety expressed in Committee. We have particularly considered the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As the House will recall, the committee stressed that a mechanism was needed to enable the House to debate the guidance before it was issued to licensing authorities. I shall therefore move Amendment No. 28 to meet the committee's concerns; I believe that it does so. Under Amendment No. 26, a draft of the initial guidance must be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution in each House. Any revisions or supplements to that guidance would come into force only when laid before Parliament. If either House disapproved the revision within a period of 40 days, a further revision would have to be laid.
	As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, that would give both Houses the opportunity to debate and disapprove the guidance and any subsequent revision of it. However, it would also preserve the flexibility to give clear and sometimes urgent advice to licensing authorities in response to developing situations.
	In conclusion, I hope that the House will accept Amendment No. 28. In doing so, I hope that noble Lords will not press Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 in light of the concessions we have made.
	I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which proposes that the licensing authority should not be required to have regard to the guidance at all. That would wholly undermine its purpose of promoting best practice and consistency. I have already outlined why I believe there is considerable merit in the guidance approach as a mechanism for spreading best practice. In discussion with a wide range of stakeholders, virtually everyone who had seen it thought it a valuable tool that they could support. While we may debate the content long and hard until it is finally issued, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, can be persuaded that there is nothing sinister here and that guidance at least in some form is an important and worthwhile part of the regime that the Bill proposes. I hope that he will not press his amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I respect the words in Amendment No. 28. I made it clear when I moved the amendment that it was intended to be balanced. I turn to what the noble Baroness laid at my door in relation to Amendment No. 26. In terms of not paying attention to the guidance, Amendment No. 31A refers to the need to have,
	"regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 177".
	We discussed the matter at length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responded at that time. There was, at least on my part, an understanding that, as with judicial review, there was a responsibility on local authorities. We have debated the matter and the Government have moved in terms of Clause 177. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
	Clause 177 [Guidance]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 98, line 15, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance ("the licensing guidance") to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under this Act.
	(1A) But the Secretary of State may not issue the licensing guidance unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(1B) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise the licensing guidance.
	(1C) A revised version of the licensing guidance does not come into force until the Secretary of State lays it before Parliament.
	(1D) Where either House, before the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a revised version of the licensing guidance is laid before it, by resolution disapproves that version—
	(a) the Secretary of State must, under subsection (1B), make such further revisions to the licensing guidance as appear to him to be required in the circumstances, and
	(b) before the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the resolution is made, lay a further revised version of the licensing guidance before Parliament.
	(1E) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purpose of subsection (1D), no account is to be taken of any time during which—
	(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
	(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 98, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) Guidance issued under this section must set out in particular the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers justify the prevention of any licensing authority from restricting the number of licensed premises in any part of a town centre or other locality within the licensing area."

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we now turn to the subject of saturation. A similar amendment to Amendment No. 29 was moved in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said in response:
	"I am willing to return to the House on this matter on Report. Indeed, I have set out our thinking on where we might be able to come up with some appropriate amendments".—[Official Report, 19/12/02; col. 803.]
	The Government have tabled amendments that enable the local planning authority to be a responsible authority under Clause 13, and the rest they leave to the guidance. We had hoped that they might also have imposed an obligation on the licensing authority to consult the local planning authority when determining its licensing policy under Clause 5(3), but they have not.
	Zoning was suggested at Committee stage as a method adopted by many countries of getting round the problem. This Government have specifically said that they will not encourage it. The Minister said that,
	"imposing a blanket closing time in a particular area might perpetuate the disorder that is associated with artificially early fixed closing times and give rise to a new form of disorder as groups of people migrate between zones".—[Official Report, 19/12/02; col. 804.]
	We would be interested to hear the Minister refer this evening to that view on zoning, reaffirming it or otherwise.
	The government guidance gives an answer that seems to be the closest to a possible compromise between their aims and what we believe is right. Paragraph 4.13 states that in certain circumstances, where it can be proved that an additional licensed premises would create exceptional problems of disorder and nuisance, which would undermine the licensing objectives, and where relevant representations are received to that effect, the licensing authority can refuse a new licence because the area is already saturated with licensed premises. However, that policy should not be absolute; nor should quotas be imposed. It is a case-by-case consideration. We welcome that. It is a great step in the right direction. Again, we are concerned that it is included only in the guidance, but it clarifies the situation.
	The guidance further states that it is impossible for licensed premises to be responsible for the behaviour of their customers when they have left the premises, if, for instance, they congregate and cause disorder. The licensing policy,
	"should also set out the other mechanisms that are available for addressing such issues".
	Those mechanisms include planning, police enforcement, measures to deal with transport and promoting a clean environment.
	We support the proposals in the guidance, especially since the guidance will be subject to an affirmative instrument in your Lordships' House. We do not support those who suggest a flat refusal of licensed premises when a limit is reached on the grounds of saturation. That would stop new businesses opening and allow already licensed premises to stagnate. Standards will fall because of lack of competition. I beg to move.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 deals with saturation. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 86 and 98, all of which refer to the creation of a saturation policy for the licensing authority.
	Local authorities will need to develop a policy on saturation and cumulative impact to be used when considering new applications. Once a saturation policy is determined, it will provide a stronger voice for the local community. It will also be a valuable tool for licensing authorities when they consider the wider, social and environmental impact when considering applications.
	Cumulative impact, which is usually negative, is the impact on the wider area and community of the presence of a number of licensed premises and their customers, not just the activity in the immediate vicinity of any particular premises. Around the country, in big cities and small towns, residents, businesses and statutory agencies want to see adequate control of problems arising not only from licensed premises but also from customers once they have left those premises.
	The Local Government Association has received reports from authorities as diverse as Penwith, Worthing, Richmond and the Cotswolds. They have all reported that the issues arising in those areas include fights, disorder, shouting, loud car stereos, horns, car doors banging and anti-social behaviour such as graffiti. There is a suggestion that vandalism is sometimes linked to the anti-social behaviour. I have listened carefully to previous debates on other methods of dealing with those problems.
	In earlier debates on the Bill, we heard about the problems of litter, vomit and urination and defecation in the streets. I make no apology, especially at this late hour, for mentioning them again. They are real concerns affecting real people, who have every right to expect the local licensing authority and the local authority fully and properly to take measures to control what goes on around their homes.
	Amendment No. 35 would strengthen the statement of licensing policy set out on pages 3 and 4 of the Bill. If the amendment were agreed to by your Lordships, Clause 5(7) on page 4 of the Bill would read:
	"Regulations may make provision about the determination and revision of policies, including policies relating to the management of cumulative impact and saturation, and the preparation and publication of licensing statements, under this section".
	Paragraph 4.15 of the guidance document is helpful but it does not go far enough to assist the licensing authorities. I welcome the recognition contained in that paragraph that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary for the licensing authority to adopt a special policy of refusing new licences because the area is already saturated with licensed premises. The amendments are proposed in an attempt to assist the authority when it has to consider new applications.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches also support the thoughts behind the amendments. On reading the guidance, I was interested to see that we are prepared to take certain aspects from the Scottish experience. I believe it is important that we do not consider the issue of zoning, which turned out to be such a failure in Scotland. It seems unfortunate that we do not also, following the Scottish experience, deregulate the non-licensable activity of performing live music, which takes place in Scotland without major problems.
	However, the matter of saturation is important. From my experience in Newcastle, I know that we should not follow the issue of not allowing any new licences. It leads not only to a decrease in the amount of competition but also to an increase in the amount of organised crime, whose participants see it as a safe way of investing and laundering money and distributing drugs.
	The issue of saturation is important. I do not believe that the amendments will solve the problem or that they will be pressed, but I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have listened carefully to the arguments put to us in the House and elsewhere on the matter of cumulative effect. We have addressed our policy on it both through our proposed legislative changes and through the statutory guidance to be issued under the Bill. We are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address disorder and nuisance arising from the carrying on of licensable activities.
	We have set out in the draft guidance the circumstances in which the sheer magnitude of the number of premises might be a legitimate consideration both in the policy statement and in considering individual applications. In effect, we have made it clear in the guidance that licensing authorities will be able to take into account saturation or cumulative effect where it exists. They will be able, for example, to make clear in their statements of licensing policy, which will be subject to consultation, that an area could cope with no more premises of a particular type and that there would be a general presumption against granting any more licences for premises of that type. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that that is a significant shift in emphasis. We have discussed this change with the LGA and it has welcomed it warmly.
	However, we also recognise that the licensing authority must be given the tools that it needs to carry out its duties, while preserving a sensible balance between regulation on the one hand and, on the other, reform. We intend to achieve that through the government amendments in this group. Our amendments to Clauses 13 and 68 will add the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities which are able to make representations on an application for a premises licence or club premises certificate. That will give an additional voice on the type of issues that arise as a result of saturation.
	We should not lose sight of the fact that one result of the amendment is that, in the vast majority of cases, at least two wings of the local authority will be empowered to make representations to the licensing committee—the environmental health authority, which is already a responsible authority under the Bill, and the local planning authority. Both of those bodies will usually be part of the same local authority as the licensing authority.
	The government amendment to Clause 7 is designed to support better communication between the relevant local authority committees as a further safeguard to ensure that important issues are not allowed to fall between the cracks. It will place a duty on the licensing committee, when considering a matter that relates to a licensing function and to a function that is not a licensing function, to consider (unless the matter is urgent) reports from other committees of the local authority on the matter before discharging the function. In effect that means that if the licensing committee were considering a licensing matter on which representations had been received in relation to saturation from, say, the local planning authority, it would need to consider a report on the matter before arriving at a decision. That will ensure that all relevant factors—including cumulative effect—can be taken fully into account.
	I hope that the House will recognise the measures for what they are: a genuine response designed to strengthen the licensing authority's role with respect to saturation or cumulative effect, while still retaining an important element of balance. The remainder of the amendments in the group would tilt the scales too far. The other amendments give rise to an issue of substance: whether limiting the number of pubs is always and of itself a desirable outcome to be pursued in its own right. We think that it is not.
	It should be quite clear that it is still our policy that licensing powers should be used to meet licensing objectives. In the great majority of cases it seems most unlikely to us that keeping the number of pubs in a town to say nine or 10, rather than 12, will have any effect whatever on crime and disorder or public nuisance. I doubt very much whether the average reveller consults Home Office licensing statistics before deciding whether to go out in Camden or Croydon.
	However we recognise that where the sheer number and concentration of licensed premises can, in the light of research and expert advice, be demonstrated to have a real and damaging impact on disorder or public nuisance, that may be considered by the licensing authority. We need to take into account the very real concerns of licensing authorities and of some local residents about the licensing objectives, while not impeding those who want to go about their business in a professional and law-abiding way. We must remember that most licensed premises provide employment in local economies and amenities for the local community with few of the problems that we have so often heard about.
	The Government have set out their vision of what they want to achieve and have given licensing authorities the flexibility to respond to individual applications. If a licensing authority chooses to impose a limitation that may seem arbitrary to an applicant, it will be for the licensing authority to justify its actions, and not to seek to cite a list of justifications prescribed under this clause as in some way legitimising its actions.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked about zoning. We need to be aware of the problems that arose in Edinburgh in the early 1990s. Zoning of licensing hours was attempted, but the police experienced real problems with the movement of people across the boundaries. The better solution is to ensure that where there are residents living nearby, stricter controls about noise and disturbance are imposed.
	Amendments Nos. 29 and 38 seek to ensure that the Government give clear reasons for their policy. I would hope that it is understood that we shall do so and that there is an opportunity now, and will be in the future, to debate those reasons. If we adopt a policy that is not grounded in any reasoning and that includes no explanation, I believe that it will be challengeable anyway.
	I very much hope that we can agree that the short debate on this group has proved a useful means of clarifying what we intend and of securing a commitment from the Government that our policy intentions will be made clear.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full reply to the amendments. This important area was raised by several noble Lords on Second Reading and debated at length in Committee. It is interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, the view of local authorities that the Bill and the draft guidance do not go far enough to assist local authorities.
	We are all trying to find ways to provide local authorities with sufficient information and guidance—of course, we should like more of that in the Bill—to assist them in their difficult, tough task, especially in those areas with an already high density of premises. We are concerned to ensure that applications for new premises, which may genuinely contribute to the quality of life and enjoyment of an area, are not outrightly or flatly refused at the planning stage without serious consideration on the part of the local authority. Creating the right balance is difficult. We therefore hope that the earlier amendment whereby we sought to balance the enjoyment of those visiting the premises against the living and working amenity and environment of interested parties in the vicinity of the premises will assist local authorities.
	As the guidance suggests, that judgment will be made case by case. We appreciate that it is a difficult area on which to legislate; we have discussed it again and again. Noble Lords have said much in common about the need to strike a careful balance. I also appreciate what the Minister has reaffirmed about zoning. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Statement of licensing policy]:

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 3, line 18, leave out "three" and insert "six"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, there are three amendments in this group. As I have not spoken before on Report, I again declare an interest as a managing director of a regional brewer, an operator of about 1,500 public houses. The amendments all relate to the statement of licensing policy—Clause 5. They are all designed to cut the red tape that has built up around the statement of licensing policy. The Government have constantly re-emphasised during proceedings on the Bill that they want it to be deregulatory. The amendments are designed to help them in that task.
	The first issue is the timing of the revision of the licensing statement—the licensing functions. At present, the Bill requires the statement to be reviewed every three years. I made the point in Committee that if we want a fair balance between local residents' views and a stable framework for the development of entertainment facilities, three years is too short a period.
	The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replying to the debate, referred to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. He pointed out that the Act required a crime prevention strategy to be revised every three years, arguing that the amendment that I proposed, to insert the words "five years", was inappropriate because it was not contiguous with or a multiplier of the three-year period required by that Act.
	I have therefore tabled the amendment, following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to provide for a six-year revision. In other words, at the end of every two periods of a crime prevention strategy, there would be a revision of the licensing policy. That in no way undermines people's right to have a proper say in licensing policy in their area. It provides a better framework for the development of new entertainment facilities. I shall not repeat what I said in Committee, but it is easily two to two and a half years from the inception of a new facility to completion, and it would not be fair for the goalposts to be moved by a licensing function in that way. The first amendment would achieve a balance between local democracy and commercial reality.
	The second barnacle that I wish to remove from this part of the ship of state is the provisions that relate to those who must be consulted before policy can be determined. The list includes the fire authority. I have no problem with the fire authority having a role, but it need not have a role in the establishment of overall policy. As I said in Committee, the fire authority will have to be involved because no one will get insurance without a fire certificate. That is nothing to do with setting overall policy. In reply to the amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness gave the game away. She said:
	"One aspect of public safety is the risk of a serious fire in premises full of young people".—[Official Report, 19/12/02; col. 828.]
	She was right, but that matter relates to the premises licence and has nothing to do with licensing policy.
	We will establish a situation in which everybody and his brother get involved in determining licensing policy. The fire authority does not need to play a role. The issues of public safety relating to a premises are the same whether it is in Newcastle, London or Truro. They will be considered by the fire authority and discussed with regard to the premises licence. In the interests of creating a less bureaucratic framework, the fire authority should not be mentioned in the Bill. In the guidance that we received after the Committee stage, paragraph 4.6 makes it clear that the licensing authority can decide whom it wishes to consult. The guidance says:
	"it is for each licensing authority to decide the full extent of its consultation".
	If a local authority suddenly thought that it wanted to have fire authority input, it could do so.
	The last amendment proposes the publication of the names of those who have been consulted. Clause 5(3) requires the licensing authority to consult such persons as it considers to be representative of holders of premises licences, holders of club premises certificates, holders of personal licences, businesses and residents. Whether one is on the side of the operators of entertainment facilities or of the residents, it is only fair that what consultation has taken place and who has been consulted are made public, so that other people—operators of entertainment facilities or members of the general public—know who has been consulted and the results of the consultation. It is a question of openness and transparency and would allow people to be clear about what is going on in their area.
	For those reasons, the amendments are important. They would revise and tighten up the statement of licensing policy. I have no problem with the principle, but the process is over-elaborate, over-bureaucratic and over-cumbersome. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Amendment No. 31 relates to the revision of licensing policy. We discussed the subject at some length in Committee. I shall not take up your Lordships' time to repeat what my noble friend said or what was said in Committee, but it is supposed to be a deregulatory Bill.
	I have written down, "Give the industry a chance". It is difficult for the industry. As the Bill stands, local authorities are able to revise their licensing policy on a three-yearly basis, which could completely alter the whole approach that that particular local authority may take with regard to policy for various kinds of premises. There must be a fair balance. Throughout the stages of the Bill we have heard much from the Minister with regard to the importance of consideration for everyone who wants to enjoy deregulated measures in relation to alcohol and entertainment laws—both in terms of the time that facilities will be open, as well as access and the number and kinds of facilities that will be available.
	If the industry is to find itself responding on a three-yearly basis when, as my noble friend said, so many of the premises when introducing new facilities will need time in order to both develop those facilities and get them off the ground, it will be hard for them if they then have to react to what could be a radical change in policy. There is a need for a fair balance between what local authorities should be able to achieve and what my noble friend has referred to as reality on the ground.
	I support Amendment No. 36. It is important that there is proper open and transparent consultation. It is only fair that everyone should know who has been consulted and involved so that those involved—whichever side, if they must take sides—know where they stand.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches hope that the Minister will reconsider the three-year policy. It is such a short period of time that the licensing authority will be perpetually reviewing licensing policy. There is some weight in the amendment. I do not believe for one second that the Minister is about to accept a six-year period. However, there is a degree of merit for it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for being so candid in his introduction of these amendments. He said that it was an issue of local democracy against commercial viability—an issue of the brewers against the people. The Conservative Party and Liberal Democrat Party have chosen to cast their lot with the brewers against the people. That is their problem, not mine.
	Amendment No. 31 reduces the frequency of consultation from once every three years to once every six years. The argument in favour of a three-year period was partly that it coincides with the period for crime prevention policies. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, did not greatly care for that argument and he has made that clear. However, it also strikes a balance between the provision of a stable operating environment for business on the one hand, and the flexibility that licensing authorities need to address changing local circumstances on the other.
	In Committee, it was argued that the Government do not intend to give much local latitude or freedom to licensing authorities in determining their licensing policy. That is not the case. It would be the case if we agreed to the amendments, or it would be closer to being the case. What we are requiring is that local licensing authorities should have regard to the statutory guidance in carrying out their licensing functions. Opposition parties are in favour of turning that into regulation. In other words, they are in favour of reducing the scope for local differences and local responsibility for licensing authorities. They are in favour of increasing the power of the Secretary of State. Again, so be it. That is their position. I hope that they do not have to defend it in public.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, far be it from me to take a combative line. I am emollient at this time of night. However, did not the Minister give an indication that there would be variation in the fees? We do not believe that that is the case.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, has anyone ever accused me of being combative? I am no such thing. I am on the side of the people and of local communities. I am on the side of those who would say that situations might develop in local communities which make it desirable for the licensing policy of the local authority to be subject to variation. What happens? The Opposition parties and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, say, "Oh, well, it will be five years before we get around to reviewing our licensing policy. Indeed, we're not allowed to review it in less than five years from now. You'll just have to wait until that time". That is not a plausible point of view and it does not fit in with any of the fine words which have been used in discussing the previous amendment.
	Amendment No. 32 would remove the fire authority from the list of those who are required to be consulted. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said of the fire authority that its specialist expertise in public safety in regard to a building is vital. He referred to a building rather than to a policy, but there is a positive as well as a negative aspect to this. The fire authority can say "No" to provisions in a building, but surely it should have the opportunity of saying "Yes" to a positive policy which is in favour of fire prevention. In the week after Rhode Island, we should be particularly concerned to do that.
	Excluding the fire authority is bad for the industry. The system is designed to be collaborative rather than adversarial. The policy is a useful tool to industry in developing applications because it allows the fire authority to state its priorities and give an indication of the issues to which it would pay attention while assessing applications. Surely, that is to the benefit of the industry rather than to the disbenefit.
	Amendment No. 36 requires the licensing authority to publish details of those consulted on the licensing policy. That is exactly what we shall do in the regulations. It is not appropriate for that to be on the face of the Bill, but, clearly, the intention behind Amendment No. 36 is admirable.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, after that combative or non-combative effort, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may say that he is on the side of the people but he is actually on the side of regulation, red tape, bureaucracy and centralised control, as evidenced by the Bill. It carries a degree of centralisation so far unparalleled. I will be combative, too, and test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 56.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 31A:
	Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
	"(2A) Subject to subsection (3), in determining its policy a licensing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 177."

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. As the Minister will know, this is the second half of the duality in which I moved Amendment No. 26. As the first amendment in that group sought to take away powers from the Government and Amendment No. 31A would restore the balance and give something to the Government, I withdrew the amendment which removed powers. Now I will have to find the procedural way, whatever that is, of not pressing the issue.
	I am not absolutely certain whether, in her reply to Amendment No. 26, which was in a sense subordinate to the other amendments in that group, the Minister provided me with an answer to my concern about whether the licensing statement would be superior to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State or vice versa. I will study precisely what the Minister said on that occasion. She may wish to add something at this stage. I am not minded to prolong the debate, having withdrawn the earlier amendment. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for making it clear that he was dealing with the amendment in combination with Amendment No. 26, to which he has already spoken. As he said, it would have limited the application of the guidance to the determination of the statement of licensing policy only rather than the exercise of the licensing functions in general. My noble friend the Minister made clear in her reply why that was unacceptable. In any case, taken on its own merits Amendment No. 31A is not necessary. The determination of licensing policy and the publication of the licensing statement is a licensing function of a licensing authority. By virtue of Clause 4(3), a licensing authority already has to have regard to guidance in formulating policy. Furthermore, the requirement for consultation in Clause 5(3) still applies, so, on its own merits, with or without Amendment No. 26, the amendment is unnecessary.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it has been a rare privilege to be answered by not one Minister, but two on a combined set of amendments, even if they did not appear in the same group. I said that I would withdraw the amendment, and I shall do so. However, I shall read what the noble Baroness said in answer to the first one to see whether the issue is now settled. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 3, line 38, at end insert "and of schools, social services and parents in its area"

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, local authorities have to produce a statement of licensing policy under Clause 5. That statement will have to take into account the licensing objectives of the Bill, one of which is the protection of children. It therefore seems strange that there is no mention of parents or those who know about the protection of children in the list of people whom the local authority is required to consult. That seems so clearly an unintentional omission that I do not intend to speak at any length on the subject.
	Amendment No. 34 refers to the possibility that the chairman of the area child protection committee should be the one consultee. That is not quite wide enough. The area child protection committee is responsible for children at risk, but not for all children—not even for children in need. Including parents, schools and the area child protection committee would just about cover the matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 33. I hear the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that our Amendment No. 34 is not wide enough. We had degrouped the two amendments, but I felt it would be sensible at this late hour to speak to them together, particularly as the noble Lord has referred to Amendment No. 34. I take his comments on board.
	Clause 4 introduces a new statutory licensing aim of the protection of children from harm. However, Clause 5(3), which establishes those with whom a statement of licensing policy must be agreed in consultation, does not mention any representative of the expertise and interests of those already co-ordinating work to protect children from harm in the locality. As well as their overarching role in co-ordinating the action to protect children from abuse and neglect, area child protection committees are also directed to consider the protection of children at risk from the misuse of alcohol. Amendment No. 34 would ensure that the new statutory aim of protecting children was advised and consulted on at the local level as effectively as the three aims relating to crime and disorder, nuisance and public safety. I have come back to this subject again and again.
	Concerns are widespread that, under the new system for simplified premises licences, children will be allowed to frequent pubs and bars, in principle, unaccompanied by an adult, even late at night. In that case, the amendment, which was suggested to us by the Children's Society, would prove an important first step in drawing the area child protection committee into local licensing policy and considerations.
	We feel, too, that in order to ensure consistency nationally the guidance from the Secretary of State should include strong directions for authorities' consideration of licence applications, and the kind of conditions that should be attached to protect children from harm. As well as the general discretion to attach licence conditions in pursuit of the licensing objectives, we believe that specific guidance should relate to all licence applications for premises where alcohol consumption by adults will be the primary activity, or among the main licensable activities, and all applications for premises opening beyond eleven o'clock at night. For those applications, there should be a referral of the question of children's appropriate access to the area child protection committee in the process of considering the application.
	Each application and any awarded licence should include one of a number of the following items, subject to the advice of the committee. For example, it should include a specified lower age limit for unsupervised access; set aside hours during which restrictions on children's access should apply; specified types of activity during which restrictions on children's access should apply; and specified areas of the premises to which restrictions on children's access should apply.
	This is a sensible amendment, although it is only a first step. We have other amendments, to which we shall speak later, which relate to what we believe is the right restriction on the age of those allowed, on principle, into premises, unaccompanied and with unrestricted access. This area is proving increasingly emotive outside your Lordships' House, as people become aware of this extraordinarily liberal measure. In our minds, it does not ring true with the Government's stated policy of developing a family friendly culture. How can it be family friendly if the parents do not have to be there?
	I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The amendment by itself may be too narrow, given that the area child protection committee is most concerned with children at risk.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not want in any way to pre-empt the debate, but I should inform noble Lords that the Government are not resisting the amendments. We will agree to consider them further. That might help the debate.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I apologise for not having been in action during the earlier stages of the Bill. I had hoped to speak at greater length on an earlier amendment, which was not moved.
	It could be assumed that Clause 5(3)(f) might include parents, social services and schools, but it would be clearer if those people were included in the Bill. As with the consultation, they are included in subsection(3)(a) with the police. As we know, social inclusion is a major government objective. So it is important that the views of those with an interest in and broad experience of what is happening in their community are not only listened to, but acted upon.
	One of the four key objectives placed on licensing authorities is the protection of children from harm. It is an admirable sentiment. However, should we not take it one stage further and ensure that children themselves are heard in these matters? Now that citizenship is a compulsory part of the curriculum, might not a local youth parliament or youth club also serve as appropriate consultees?

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although I support the sentiment behind Amendment No. 33 and the great work done by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in relation to children, I believe that the groups which he is representing are already represented, or could easily be accommodated under Clause 5(3)(f). We heartily support Amendment No. 34. It seems extremely pertinent to include a local area child protection committee representative.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the House, and I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in respect of the interests of children. Of course we recognise the importance of this issue to the House and to the wider public, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated. We have been keen to ensure that as the debate on the Bill develops, we consult groups such as children's charities, Alcohol Concern, the police and the Association of Directors of Social Services to ensure that their concerns are taken into account.
	The policy enshrined in the Bill is exactly that contained in the White Paper which received widespread support. Nevertheless, we are currently engaged in a further round of consultation to ensure that the policy we operate is the right one. I therefore hope that I can avoid detaining the House on this group of amendments by saying that the proposals represented in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34—namely, that the local area child protection committee, schools, social services and parents should be consulted on the development of a local licensing policy—are indeed worthy of further consideration. Indeed, very similar proposals have been made to us directly by the Children's Society. However, I should draw attention to the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, indicated, Clause 5 already includes consultation with persons considered representatives of local residents in an area. I suggest that that will obviously include parents.
	That said, we certainly intend to examine the proposals very closely. Depending on the progress of consultation, we shall return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill or address it in another place. On that basis, and with the assurance that we are taking these representations very seriously indeed, we hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that very encouraging reply. However, I do not think that "residents" is the same as "parents". Of course some of the residents are parents, but it is parents in their role as parents that is so important. All the social services in the world cannot do what parents can do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments and a Special Report was made; it was ordered that the Special Report be printed.
	House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.